Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Buchanan

• Decision Date: 25 June 1907
• Citation: 103 S.W. 272,126 Ky. 288
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. BUCHANAN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

103 S.W. 272

126 Ky. 288

ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. BUCHANAN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 25, 1907

"To be officially reported."

On petition for rehearing. Former opinion withdrawn, and judgment of lower court in favor of plaintiff reversed, with directions for new trial.

For former report, see 88 S.W. 312.

A railroad hospital organization was organized as a corporation independent of defendant railroad; its directors being certain officers of the railroad. All employees of the railroad were, as such, members thereof, supporting the hospital by monthly contributions. No profit was derived by the railroad company from the conduct or operation of the hospital. The physicians, surgeons, and nurses in charge were selected by the directors and officers. Held, that for failure to select skillful and competent physicians and attendants defendant was liable to an employee injured by reason thereof. Judgment (1905) 88 S.W. 312, reversed on rehearing.

CARROLL J.

Appellant has established at Paducah, Ky. a hospital, known as the "Illinois Central Railroad Hospital," to which are sent as a part of its system of policy all sick, disabled and injured employés on the lines of its road in the vicinity of Paducah. It was incorporated under the laws of Kentucky and its directors and officers are taken from the chief officers of the railroad company, and the physicians surgeons, and nurses in charge are selected by these directors and officers. It does not appear that any profit or gain is derived by the railroad company from the conduct or operation of the hospital. It is supported by monthly contributions exacted from the employés of the company, who are entitled to admission.

Appellee, an employé entitled to admission, was injured in the service of appellant, and sent to the hospital for treatment. In this action he sought to recover damages from appellant upon the ground that the surgeons and attendants who waited upon and cared for him during the time he was confined in the hospital were incompetent and unskilled, and treated his wounds in an unskillful and grossly negligent manner, causing him to suffer great mental and physical pain and incur large expense in attempting to remedy the injuries he received by the negligence and

carelessness of the persons who had charge of him. Appellant answered, controverting the matter in the petition, and affirmatively set up that the hospital was a corporation and entirely independent of the railroad company, and the railroad company was not responsible for the acts or conduct of any of the persons in charge of it. Upon a trial of the case, a verdict was returned in favor of appellee, and the railroad company prosecutes this appeal. The case is now before us on a petition for rehearing; the judgment of the lower court having been reversed by this court in an opinion which may be found in 88 S.W. 312, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 1193

We gather from the record, and the principal opinion of this court, as well as a dissenting opinion found in 88 S.W. 312 27 Ky. Law Rep. 1215, that the principal question litigated between the parties was whether or not the railroad company was liable at all; this court in the principal opinion saying: "There is no evidence showing that the Illinois Central Railroad Company made any contract with appellee, Buchanan, that he would be properly and skillfully treated by proper and skillful surgeons and attendants. The fact that the hospital association was organized for that purpose does not tend to prove that the appellant made such a contract with the appellee. The Illinois Central Railroad Company is simply the agent, and gathers the funds for the benefit of the hospital asssociation, consequently for the benefit of its members. Doubtless the Illinois Central Railroad Company was indirectly benefited by its employés having proper and humane treatment at the hospital prepared for them; but that incidental benefit cannot raise the question suggested, or make it liable for the act of the servant or...