Jeffcoat v. Caine

• Decision Date: 02 August 1973
• Docket Number: No. 19672,19672
• Citation: Jeffcoat v. Caine, 261 S.C. 75, 198 S.E.2d 258 (S.C. 1973)
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Marie Harriet JEFFCOAT, Appellant, v. Ora J. CAINE, James L. King, and South Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc., ofwhom South Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc., is, Respondent.

Page 258

198 S.E.2d 258

261 S.C. 75

Marie Harriet JEFFCOAT, Appellant, v. Ora J. CAINE, James L. King, and South Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc., ofwhom South Carolina Baptist Hospital, Inc., is, Respondent.

No. 19672.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 2, 1973.

Irvin D. Parker and James B. Richardson, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.

Nexson, Pruet, Jacobs & Dallis, Columbia, for respondent.

LEWIS, Justice:

The question to be decided is whether the defendant-respondent, South Carolina Baptist Hospital, admittedly a charitable institution, is exempt, under the doctrine of charitable immunity, from liability for an intentional act of false imprisonment committed by its employees. The issue is before the Court on appeal by plaintiff-appellant from an order of the lower court granting summary judgment in favor of respondent on the ground of charitable immunity.

It is undisputed in this appeal that the complaint states a cause of action for false imprisonment, for which, if proved, respondent would be liable unless exempted from liability because of its status as a charitable institution. We are not therefore concerned with the particular facts and circumstances, but only with the legal issue of whether respondent is exempted under the charitable immunity doctrine from liability for an intentional act of false imprisonment.

The doctrine of charitable immunity was apparently first recognized in this State in Lindler v. Columbia Hospital, 98 S.C. 25, 81 S.E. 512. The action in that case was by a patient for damages alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of a nurse employed by the hospital, a charitable institution. The Court, in exempting the hospital from liability, stated the applicable rule and its basis as follows:

'The true ground upon which to rest the exemption from liability is that it would be against public policy to hold a charitable institution responsible for the negligence of its servants, selected with due care.'

It is evident that the Court, in Lindler, did not intend to fashion a rule of complete exemption from tort liability; for it was careful to point out that the question of whether a charitable institution 'would be liable for negligence in the selection of its servants without due care is not before the court for consideration.'

The Court next considered the doctrine of charitable immunity in the case of Vermillion v. Woman's College of Due West, 104 S.C. 197, 88 S.E. 649. Plaintiff was injured when the balcony of defendant's auditorium fell during the progress of an entertainment. Action was brought on the theory that the balcony fell because of negligence in construction. The decision in this case affirmed the holding in Lindler that charitable institutions were exempt from liability for the negligent conduct of their agents and, in addition, held that such exemption from liability for the acts of their agents applied 'whether these be selected with or without due care.' The case was remanded, however, for a new trial and, upon appeal after a retrial, judgment for defendant was affirmed. 111 S.C. 156, 97 S.E. 619.

Subsequently, in Peden v. Furman University, 155 S.C. 1, 151 S.E. 907, the Court

refused to extend the immunity doctrine so as to exempt a charitable institution from liability for trespass and nuisance arising out of the activity of a lessee.

The Court also refused to extend immunity to the commercial activities of a charity in Eiserhardt v. State Agricultural and Mechanical Society of South Carolina, 235 S.C. 305, 111 S.E.2d 568. That was an action for damages allegedly sustained as a result of stepping into a hole in a parking lot controlled and operated by the defendant. The operation of the parking lot was a...