Keyser v. Richards

• Decision Date: 30 June 1925
• Docket Number: 53.
• Citation: Keyser v. Richards, 148 Md. 669, 130 A. 41 (Md. 1925)
• Parties: KEYSER v. RICHARDS ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Supreme Court

130 A. 41

148 Md. 669

KEYSER v. RICHARDS ET AL.

No. 53.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 30, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cecil County; Wm. H. Adkins, Lewin W Wickes, and Thomas J. Keating, Judges.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Herman S. Keyser, administrator of C. Bernard Keyser deceased, against Granville H. Richards and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, and WALSH, JJ.

Vernon Cook and Isaac Lobe Straus, both of Baltimore, for appellant.

James U. Dennis, of Baltimore (Omar D. Crothers, of Elkton, on the brief), for appellee Richards.

Wm Pepper Constable and George Weems Williams, both of Baltimore (William T. Fryer and John D. Alexander, both of Baltimore on the brief), for appellees Morris and others.

PATTISON J.

The suit in this case was brought by Herman S. Keyser, administrator of C. Bernard Keyser, deceased, against Granville H. Richards, Mary Irene Morris, Murray P. Brush, Isabelle T. Bagley, and Martha Sue Hardesty, to recover for the physical pain and suffering of the said C. Bernard Keyser, caused, as alleged, by the negligence of the defendants in the treatment, nursing, care, and management of the said C. Bernard Keyser while a student at the Tome Institute.

The appellees demurred to the declaration, and the demurrers were sustained with leave to the plaintiff to amend, but, as he refused to amend, judgment was entered for the defendants, and this appeal is from that judgment.

The declaration alleges that:

"Herman S. Keyser, administrator of C. Bernard Keyser deceased, by Isaac Lobe Straus and Vernon Cook, his attorneys, sues Granville H. Richards, Mary Irene Morris, Murray P. Brush, Isabelle T. Bagley, and Martha Sue Hardesty, for that the plaintiff is the administrator of C. Bernard Keyser, duly appointed by the orphans' court of Baltimore city, that the said C. Bernard Keyser, now deceased, was the only son of the plaintiff, and that the said C. Bernard Keyser died on March 13th, 1923.

In January, 1923, the plaintiff entered his son as a student at the Tome Institute, Port Deposit, Cecil county, Md., a school for boys. About two years prior to the date mentioned the said C. Bernard Keyser had suffered a serious illness, and upon entering him in the Tome Institute the plaintiff notified the authorities in charge of the said school that the boy had been away from school for nearly two years, had suffered from tonsilitis, rheumatism, chorea, and heart lesion and endocarditis, and especially requested that his son should receive the personal supervision of the head of the school, should not be given violent exercise, and that the plaintiff should be notified in case the boy at any time appeared to be unwell. That subsequently, about February 1, 1923, said C. Bernard Keyser became sick and was sent to the infirmary of the Tome Institute, which is conducted under the management, supervision, and control of the defendants. That, although the plaintiff had requested immediate notice of any illness of his son, no notice was given him of his illness, and the plaintiff did not learn of the same until February 4, 1923, when he happened to telephone his son and learned from his son that he was sick and in the infirmary. The illness was said to be either a cold or the grippe. The boy was kept in the infirmary from February 1 to February 6, on which latter date he was discharged from the infirmary by the defendants, although he had not at that time recovered from his illness.

Subsequent to the above happenings, the said C. Bernard Keyser occupied a room assigned to him in the dormitory on the third floor. About midnight of February 11, 1923, one of the water pipes in said building broke, and a large quantity of water ran down through and over the walls and floor of the room occupied by the said C. Bernard Keyser. The walls became thoroughly soaked and damp, and this condition was recognized by the defendants, who removed the boy to a dry room early Monday morning. On Tuesday, however, the boy was again removed to a room on the second floor, directly underneath the room which he had previously occupied, the walls of which second floor room had also been flooded and were damp, and said C. Bernard Keyser was compelled to sleep in said damp room on Tuesday night, and continuously thereafter until February 16, notwithstanding that he was at that time still sick.

On February 16, 1923, the boy complained to Isabelle T. Bagley, one of the defendants herein, and then and now the general housekeeper of the Tome Institute (and as such housekeeper exercised her direct and personal control over the boys living at the school), that he was sick, and asked her to take his temperature. This she refused to do and ordered him to go to school. The boy, however, instead of going to school, went to the defendant Dr. Granville H. Richards, who was and is the school physician, and to whom was and is intrusted the medical care of the boys at the school (and particularly of the boys in the infirmary, and having the general charge and supervision of the infirmary and the patients, nurses, housekeeper, and other employees therein). Said Dr. Richards took the boy's temperature and found that he had a fever and sent him to the infirmary. On February 18, the plaintiff visited his son at said infirmary. He found him in a room not sufficiently heated, the steam or hot water pipes were hardly warm, the window was up, and the wind blowing through the room, although the temperature outside was below freezing. The plaintiff complained to the defendant Mary Irene Morris, who was the resident nurse in charge of the infirmary (under the supervision of the defendant, Dr. Richards, and at such time in the immediate charge of the infirmary and the boys placed therein), about the room being so cold, and she informed the plaintiff that the man who fired the heating plant had not been around that morning, although it was then between 10:30 and 11 o'clock. The plaintiff being desirous of seeing the defendant, Dr. Richards, asked when he would call, and, not being able to ascertain definitely, waited until late in the afternoon in the hope of seeing the doctor, but no doctor called. During this time the plaintiff observed that his son, although suffering with a high fever and temperature, was compelled to get up out of his bed and walk through a cold hallway every time he had to visit the toilet. The plaintiff thereupon insisted that the nurse should provide a urinal and bedpan, which she agreed to do. He also requested that his son be protected from chilling and kept quietly and warmly in bed and not allowed to get out of bed for any purpose whatever, to all of which the nurse agreed.

On February 19, the plaintiff called the defendant Dr. Richards by telephone and told him that he considered that his son was not receiving proper nursing attention, in that he had been required, notwithstanding that he had a high fever, to get out of bed and go through the hallway aforesaid, every time he wished to go to the toilet, and asked the defendant Dr. Richards to have this condition remedied in the future, and not to let the boy get out of bed for any reason whatever, which the defendant Dr. Richards promised he would do. The plaintiff also asked the said defendant what was the matter with his son, and the defendant replied that he had the grippe, accompanied by fever and temperature. The defendant Dr. Richards also suggested that he would move the boy to a private room on the second floor, where he could be watched more closely and given better attention. This was accordingly done. On February 20, the plaintiff again talked with the defendant Dr. Richards over the telephone. The doctor said that the boy was doing very well, was better than the day before, his temperature was still not normal and the doctor further said that he had given orders that the boy was not to get out of bed for any purpose. On February 21, the defendant Murray P. Brush (the principal or headmaster of the Tome Institute and in general charge of the entire institution, including the dormitory and the boys living therein), being in Baltimore, visited the plaintiff, and assured him that his son was getting along nicely, and he thought he would be all right in a few days. On this same day, February 21, 1923, the defendants ordered the removal of the said C. Bernard Keyser from the private room on the second floor to the general ward on the first floor. The reason given for this removal was that one of the teachers at the Tome Institute, Prof. Davenport, was seriously ill, and that the father of said Prof. Davenport, who is a bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, living at Easton, Md., came to Tome Institute to visit his son, Prof. Davenport, and that the said C. Bernard Keyser was ordered out of his private room in order that the same might be used by Bishop Davenport, though this of course was done without the knowledge of the said bishop; that on the day in question the said C. Bernard Keyser was very ill; he was suffering with rheumatic fever and endocarditis. It is most essential to the proper treatment of this disease that the patient be given complete rest in bed and not allowed to make any exertion whatsoever, and not allowed to get out of bed for any cause whatsoever. The boy during the day in question had a temperature

...