Jackson v. Doe
| Decision Date | 10 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 54333,54333 |
| Citation | 296 So.2d 323 |
| Parties | Amzy JACKSON, Jr. v. Dr. John DOE et al. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Gary L. Boland, James A. George, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-applicant.
Robert L. Kleinpeter, Kleinpeter & Nevils, Baton Rouge, for defendants-respondents.
The respondent has correctly stated that the primary issue originally presented when this writ was granted (the question of charitable immunity) has now been disposed of by the unanimous opinion of this Court in Garlington v. Kingsley, 289 So.2d 88 (La.1974). In Garlington we expressly overruled Grant v. Touro Infirmary, 254 La. 204, 223 So.2d 148 (1969), and stated:
'* * * We hold that the Rapides General Hospital and other charitable institutions are not immune from suit in tort and that injured parties proceeding against such institutions need not plead or establish those circumstances which some courts have recognized in the past as exceptions to the so-called rule of charitable immunity.'
Respondent does not take issue with the holding in Garlington but merely urges that the decision in that case should operate prospectively only so that the respondent, Baton Rouge General Hospital, would not be held liable in damages to the relator in the case before us. Prospective application of judicial decisions is the exception rather than the general rule of law. No exceptional circumstances are argued which would support this Court's departure from the general principle. Respondent merely urges that it would be fair to make the holding in Garlington a prospective ruling. We do not find that fairness, justice, or any other consideration would require such a holding by us.
For the reasons assigned, the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the district court, maintaining a motion for summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Baton Rouge General Hospital, are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. The casting of costs is reserved for the trial court.
Prospective application of judicial decisions is legislating. I have not agreed to such action on the rare occasions in recent years when this Court has adopted such a decree. It is a departure from the Court's previously announced opposition to such a practice. In my view it should not be continued. See my dissent in State ex rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hulin v. Fibreboard Corp.
...resort are not the law, but only the evidence of what the court thinks is the law.' " (quoting Norton, 150 So. at 858)); Jackson v. Doe, 296 So.2d 323, 323 (La.1974) ("Prospective [only] application of judicial decisions is the exception rather than the general rule of law." (rejecting argu......
-
Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland
...charitable immunity. Albritton v. Neighborhood Ctrs. Ass'n for Child Dev., 12 Ohio St.3d 210, 466 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1984); Jackson v. Doe, 296 So.2d 323, 323 (La. 1974) (citing Garlington v. Kingsley, 289 So.2d 88, 93 (La.1974)); Myers v. Drozda, 180 Neb. 183, 141 N.W.2d 852, 854 [¶ 18] Sout......
-
Fruge's Heirs v. Blood Services, 74-1615
...from suit in tort. The Louisiana Supreme Court subsequently held that Garlington v. Kingsley is effective retroactively. Jackson v. Doe, 296 So.2d 323 (La.1974); Connor v. Methodist Hospital, 297 So.2d 660 During oral argument before this Court, the defendants admitted that the doctrine of ......
-
McLin v. Breaux
...supreme court. See Jackson v. Doe, 286 So.2d 751, 753-54 (La.App. 1st Cir.1974), judgment set aside on other grounds and remanded, 296 So.2d 323 (La.1974). We note that the setting aside of the Jackson judgment and the overruling of the Grant case by the Garlington case effected only the ab......