Howard v. South Baltimore General Hospital

• Decision Date: 09 December 1948
• Docket Number: 31.
• Parties: HOWARD v. SOUTH BALTIMORE GENERAL HOSPITAL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

62 A.2d 574

191 Md. 617

HOWARD v. SOUTH BALTIMORE GENERAL HOSPITAL.

No. 31.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 9, 1948

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Emory H. Niles, Judge.

Action by Jesse Paul Howard against South Baltimore General Hospital, a corporation, to recover for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of negligence of a servant of defendant while plaintiff was a paying patient in hospital. From a judgment for defendant entered after sustaining a demurrer to amended declaration, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Harry W. Allers, A. Frederick Taylor, and Roland C. Ready, all of Baltimore, for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

HENDERSON Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment for the defendant in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, after the court had sustained a demurrer to an amended declaration. The action was to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of negligence on the part of a servant of the hospital corporation, while the plaintiff was a paying patient therein. A second count sought to recover damages limited to a sum not greater than the defendant corporation would be able to pay out of surplus funds, income and property, as distinguished from endowment or maintenance funds. The demurrer is based upon the conceded fact that the defendant is an eleemosynary corporation, and as such enjoys immunity from tort liability.

The principle that charitable corporations are free from tort liability has long been a basic part of the law of this state. It was first established in Perry v. House of Refuge, 63 Md. 20, 52 Am.Rep. 495, and reaffirmed in Loeffler v. Trustees of Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hospital, 130 Md. 265, 100 A. 301, L.R.A.1917D, 967. The appellant contends that those cases were wrongly decided, and are out of line with the modern trend, citing Mulliner v. Evangelischer Diakonniessenverein of Minnesota District of German Evangelical Synod of North America, 144 Minn. 392, 175 N.W. 699; President and Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 130 F.2d 810, and other cases. He also contends that the Maryland doctrine was originally based upon a dictum of Lord Cottenham in Heriot's Hospital v Ross, 12 Clark & Fin. 507, and Duncan v. Findlater 6 Clark & Fin. 894, which was subsequently overruled in Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, L.R. 1 H.L. 93, and Forman v. Mayor of Canterbury, L.R. 6 Q.B. 214. Whatever the merits of the argument as an original proposition, we are not warranted in overruling our prior decisions. There are special reasons why the doctrine of state decisis should be adhered to in this case. To withdraw immunity from this type of corporation at this time would be an act of judicial legislation in the face of a contrary policy declared by the legislature itself.

Not only has the legislature granted exemptions to charitable corporations from various forms of taxation, in order that their field of usefulness might be enlarged, but it has...