Knight v. Collins

Decision Date08 June 1971
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 71-99.
Citation327 F. Supp. 97
PartiesAndrew KNIGHT, Administrator of the Estate of Kim Knight, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. A. Carl COLLINS, Jackson County Hospital, a corporation, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

James H. Lackey and Tarter & Wininger, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff.

S. R. Starnes, and Spain, Gillon, Riley, Tate & Ansley, Birmingham, Ala., Jack Livingston and Dawson, McGinty & Livingston, Scottsboro, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

POINTER, District Judge.

This action was instituted by the administrator of the deceased infant's estate against the hospital and the physician. It comes on to be heard on the hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint as amended.

The original complaint charged that the hospital, in releasing the newly born infant, had negligently failed to "continue" needed treatment and, in not readmitting the infant on the following day, had negligently failed to diagnose or treat the infant. In view of the hospital's claim of governmental immunity, not factually disputed, it must be held under Erie that such allegations fail to state a cause of action against the hospital. Jenkins v. Houston County Hospital Board, 284 Ala. 180, 223 So.2d 583 (1969).

In an effort to escape the defense of governmental immunity, the plaintiff administrator amended to add a paragraph setting forth an implied contract whereby the hospital, at the time of admitting the expectant mother, agreed to care for her during delivery and to care for infant after birth until able to leave the hospital. Counsel for plaintiff skillfully patterned the allegations after those approved by the Alabama Supreme Court in Paul v. Escambia County Hospital Board, 283 Ala. 488, 218 So.2d 817 (1969). In Paul the mother was allowed, as against the claim of governmental immunity, to proceed with an action for breach of contract upon allegations deemed by that court to claim a total failure by the hospital, after accepting agreed upon charges, to undertake any part of the performance of that contract.

The present case cannot, however, for two reasons be posited upon the Paul decision. First, the allegations of the complaint reflect that the hospital did undertake performance of its obligations under the alleged contract and that claimed fault lies in its negligent or incomplete performance. The Alabama Supreme Court in Paul (218 So.2d at 821-822) carefully noted that, in such a situation, the action could not be maintained ex contractu and would be subject to the governmental immunity claim. While the new paragraph added by the plaintiff here could, absent other allegations, be taken as alleging a failure to undertake any performance, there are other allegations—those contained in the original complaint, which were not deleted—which show that the hospital had undertaken its obligations but had failed to "continue" the same. (The plaintiff does not attempt to assert acceptance by the hospital of a new contract on the day on which readmission was sought but denied.)

Secondly, the Paul case, contrasted with the present litigation, was brought by the mother as plaintiff, seeking damages suffered by her as a result of the alleged breach of contract by the hospital. The allegations in the Paul complaint relative to death of the infant were not by way of asserting a cause of action on behalf of the infant, but at most...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Geohagan v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 24 Mayo 1973
    ...contract involved. This precise point was before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in Knight, Admr. v. Collins, et al., 327 F.Supp. 97 (1971). In an opinion by Pointer, J., it was set 'To the extent that plaintiff seeks to bring a cause for breach of contract with......
  • Holcomb v. Escambia County Hospital Bd.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 12 Abril 1973
    ...that we are not invited by this appeal to revisit Jenkins and Garrett, since our review is confined to the contract counts.2 Knight v. Collins, D.C., 327 F.Supp. 97. Under the doctrine of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, the Federal Court is required to app......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT