Kidd v. Massachusetts Homeopathic Hosp.

• Citation: 237 Mass. 500,130 N.E. 55
• Parties: KIDD v. MASSACHUSETTS HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL.
• Decision Date: 03 March 1921
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

237 Mass. 500

130 N.E. 55

KIDD

v.MASSACHUSETTS HOMEOPATHIC HOSPITAL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 3, 1921.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Richard W. Irwin, Judge.

Action by Ingebag G. Kidd, administratrix of the estate of Donald Kidd, Jr., against the Massachusetts Homeopathic Hospital, resulting in a directed verdict for defendant; the case being reported to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment ordered entered on the verdict.

Samuel Sigilman, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Pitt F. Drew and Charles S. Walkup, Jr., both of Boston, for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

This is an action of tort by the administratrix of the estate of Donald Kidd, Jr., for injuries suffered by him, through the negligence of the defendant's servants or agents, while a patient in its hospital. In answer the defendant alleged it was a charitable corporation, under St. 1855, c. 411, and not liable for the negligent acts of its agent. In the superior court a verdict was directed for the defendant and the case reported to the Supreme Judicial Court.

It was decided in the recent case of Roosen v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, 235 Mass. 66, 126 N. E. 392, with a full citation of authorities, that an action of tort could not be maintained to recover damages for injuries caused by the negligence of the servants or agents of a public charity, because it has no funds which can be chargeable with any judgment the plaintiff might recover, except those held subject to the trust of maintaining the charity. See, also, McDonald v. Mass. General Hospital, 120 Mass. 432,21 Ann. Cas. 529;Farrigan v. Pevear, 193 Mass. 147, 78 N. E. 855,7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 481, 118 Am. St. Rep. 487;Thornton v. Franklin Square House, 200 Mass. 465, 86 N. E. 909,22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 486;Conklin v. John Howard Industrial Home, 224 Mass. 222, 112 N. E. 606;Zoulalian v. New England Sanatorium & Benevolent Ass'n, 230 Mass. 102, 119 N. E. 686, L. R. A. 1918F, 185. The defendant is a charitable corporation. By the special act of the Legislature creating it (St. 1855, c. 411) it was authorized to hold real and personal property to aid the benevolent purposes of the institution, which property was to be held for the support and maintenance of a hospital for sick persons. By St. 1890, c. 358, the sum of $120,000 was ordered to be paid to the defendant, which was declared to be a charitable corporation; and as a consideration of the grant it was to maintain forever not less than...