Hodge v. Osteopathic General Hospital of Rhode Island

• Decision Date: 20 May 1970
• Docket Number: No. 847-A,847-A
• Citation: 265 A.2d 733,107 R.I. 135
• Parties: Robert HODGE et al. v. OSTEOPATHIC GENERAL HOSPITAL OF RHODE ISLAND et al. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 733

265 A.2d 733

107 R.I. 135

Robert HODGE et al. v. OSTEOPATHIC GENERAL HOSPITAL OF RHODE ISLAND et al.

No. 847-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 20, 1970.

Edward D. Feldstein, Grafton H. Willey III, Providence, for plaintiffs

Higgins & Slattery, Eugene V. Higgins, Providence, for Osteopathic General Hospital of Rhode Island.

OPINION

PAOLINO, Justice.

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, commenced this civil action by a complaint filed in 1967 against the defendant hospital and two doctors for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of defendants' negligence in administering spinal anesthesia to the wife during childbirth and for consequential damages to the husband. ¹ This proceeding involves only plaintiffs' action against the hospital. The hospital filed an answer to the complaint containing three defenses. In the third defense it stated that at the time of the alleged incident in 1966 it was a hospital corporation incorporated by an act of the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island, was sustained in whole or in part by charitable contributions or endowments and was, therefore, immune from liability under the provisions of G.L.1956, § 7-1-22. ² After a hearing under Super.R.Civ.P. 42(b), on the hospital's third defense, the trial justice granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the hospital was exempt from liability under § 7-1-22. He based this ruling on his finding that, during the period of time involved in this case, defendant hospital was sustained in whole or in part by charitable contributions or endowments. A judgment granting the hospital's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the action against it was entered. The case is here on plaintiffs' appeal from that judgment.

This appeal raises the question whether, on this record, defendant hospital was immune from liability, as a matter of law, under § 7-1-22, as applicable in 1966, thus justifying the trial justice's award of summary judgment for the hospital and the dismissal of plaintiffs' action against it.

On August 19, 1967, the hospital filed a motion for summary judgment in accordance with Super.R.Civ.P. 56 and supported its motion with two affidavits. The first, signed by one of its counsel, alleged that the hospital was immune from liability 'because it is supported in part by Charitable Contributions and Endowments pursuant to the General Laws of Rhode Island 1956 as amended, Section 7-1-22.' The second, signed by the hospital's administrator, states that in his capacity as administrator he had 'full and direct knowledge' of the fact that the hospital was sustained in part by charitable contributions and endowments. The plaintiffs filed no counter-affidavits.

On September 26, 1967, plaintiffs propounded interrogatories to the hospital requesting the following information for the hospital's preceding three fiscal years: (1) the amount of charitable contributions received by the hospital and the amount of income from endowment funds, (2) the annual budget of the hospital, (3) the gross income of the hospital, and (4) the profit and loss statements for each of those years or their equivalent.

On September 28, 1967, the hospital's motion for summary judgment was heard before a justice of the Superior Court. Subsequent thereto an order was entered denying this motion without prejudice.

On December 19, 1967, defendant hospital answered plaintiffs' interrogatories and again filed a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment with attached affidavits alleging immunity from liability under § 7-1-22. Again, plaintiffs filed no counter-affidavits. This motion was heard on February 27, 1968, by a justice of the Superior Court, who denied it without prejudice to the hospital's right to assert it again at the time of the trial.

On March 1, 1968, plaintiffs moved pursuant to Super.R.Civ.P. 42(b) for a separate trial on the issue raised by the hospital's third defense and asked for more responsive answers to its interrogatories. Both motions were denied.

It appears from the record that on April 7, 1969, the case was called and continued for a hearing to April 21, 1969. After several pretrial conferences, the trial justice ordered a separate hearing, under Rule 42(b), on the hospital's third defense prior to commencement of the trial on its merits. This hearing was held on April 21, 1969. At this time the hospital renewed its motion for summary judgment and supplemented this motion with its financial statements and the testimony of its assistant administrator. The financial statements were admitted as defendant's exhibits 'A' through 'K'.

In his decision rendered from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial justice stated that the only issue was whether the hospital was sustained in whole or in part by charitable contributions or endowments. He interpreted the word 'sustained,' which he considered the key word, as meaning 'supported, maintained.' He found that the buildings and substantial equipment being used by the hospital in 1967 were financed in substantial part by contributions. He observed that it appeared from the exhibits that at least $200,000 came from cash contributions and that there was a substantial contribution by the federal government. He concluded that, since the building and equipment that were being used by the hospital came from charity, § 7-1-22 applied and the hospital was exempt. He also stated that it was obvious from the operating statement that the hospital could not have operated if it had to buy the building or equipment from fees. The action against the hospital was dismissed on the ground that the hospital was immune under § 7-1-22, as applicable in June 1966. On May 5, 1969, an order was entered which contained specific findings of fact on the basis of which the hospital's motion for summary judgment was granted. ³

The main thrust of plaintiffs' argument on appeal is that the trial justice's finding that, during the period of time involved in this case, defendant hospital was 'sustained' in part by charitable contributions or endowments is wrong, and that, therefore, his decision based on such finding is erroneous and should be overruled. The plaintiffs argue that they have put in issue the hospital's right to the shelter of § 7-1-22; that defendant's affidavit, and plaintiffs' interrogatories and the answers filed thereto by the hospital, raised an issue of whether the hospital was 'sustained' by charity, and thus whether it was entitled to the statutory immunity; and that, when the issue was raised, the trial justice was required to view the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, to halt the proceedings and leave any determination of the question which was raised for a later proceeding. In brief, plaintiffs argue that the issue was 'found' and should not have been 'determined.'

In support of their position, plaintiffs further argue that § 7-1-22, is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. They point to the fact that § 7-1-22 was originally enacted after the decision in Glavin v. Rhode Island Hospital, 12 R.I. 411, 34 Am.Rep. 675, holding that a hospital which was supported by charitable donations was not immune from responsibility for the negligence of its officers, trustees, agents or servants. They admit that, after Glavin was decided, the legislature modified the common law in this state to provide for hospital immunity in a proper case. However, they argue that the benefits of that immunity should not be extended to defendant hospital, which they claim is self-sustaining and does not require charitable contributions in order to exist. In the circumstances, they argue, the word 'sustained' should be construed so as to mandate a strict construction which would require the extension of immunity under the statute only where a hospital cannot exist without charitable contributions.

The plaintiffs next argue that, under such a construction, defendant hospital is not entitled to immunity under the statute because its financial records show that it realized a net income from its operations during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967, and because the record shows that for each of those years the net income exceeded the charitable contributions received by the hospital. Finally, they argue the fact that charitable contributions were used to provide a portion of the cost of constructing the hospital and purchasing equipment should not allow the hospital to be sheltered ad infinitum; that to accept the trial justice's ruling would not only provide such a shelter but would also lead to the absurd result that if a hospital received only one contribution of $1, it could be forever sheltered under the statute, no matter how large a profit was realized; and that for the reasons cited, immunity under the statute should only be extended where a hospital cannot exist without charitable contributions.

We have set forth at some length the plaintiffs' arguments challenging the trial justice's decision because the award of a motion for summary judgment is a drastic remedy which may be granted only within certain well-defined guidelines. 1 Kent, R.I.Civ.Prac. § 56.4, at 418.

The problem before us involves the question whether the trial justice, on the basis of the record before him, erred in granting a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. Rule 56(c), in pertinent part, provides that:

'The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as matter of law.'

In Marandola v. Hillcrest Builders, Inc., 102 R.I. 46, 49, 227 A.2d 785, 787, the court, in speaking of this rule, said that in ruling on the motion the trial judge must consider '* * * affidavits and pleadings in the light most favorable to the...