Leavell v. Western Kentucky Asylum for the Insane

• Decision Date: 02 March 1906
• Citation: 122 Ky. 213,91 S.W. 671
• Parties: LEAVELL v. WESTERN KENTUCKY ASYLUM FOR THE INSANE.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

91 S.W. 671

122 Ky. 213

LEAVELL v. WESTERN KENTUCKY ASYLUM FOR THE INSANE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 2, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Nellie D. Leavell against the Western Kentucky Asylum for the Insane. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

James Breathitt and Dormer & Russell, for appellant.

C. H Bush and Hunter Wood & Son, for appellee.

SETTLE J.

This action was instituted bp appellant in the Christian circuit court to recover from appellee damages in the sum of $10,000 for an injury to her hand. The facts alleged in the petition as constituting appellant's cause of action were, in substance, that, while in the employ of appellee and engaged in ironing clothing in its laundry, a department of the institution in which the clothing of its lunatics in its care is washed and ironed, her hand was, by the act of an irresponsible lunatic in starting in motion an ironing machine through which she was about to pass an article of clothing, caught, mangled, and permanently maimed between the heated rollers thereof, the machine being started by the lunatic without her knowledge or the direction of any one so to do; that the lunatic by whom her hand was injured was an inmate of appellee asylum and in its custody, and was by its permission allowed to work in and about its laundry; that the lunatic was incompetent to do any work about the laundry, but by the gross negligence of appellee was permitted to do so and that such negligence caused the injury to appellant's hand complained of. Appellee filed a demurrer to the petition which the lower court sustained, and appellant failing to plead further, judgment was entered dismissing the action and of that judgment appellant now complains.

The question presented by this appeal is: Can the appellee asylum be held responsible for a tort committed by a lunatic of whom it has custody? In our view of the law the question must be answered in the negative. Appellee is purely an eleemosynary institution created by the state and maintained at its expense for the beneficent purpose of caring for such of its citizens as may by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction be declared of unsound mind, and, by reason thereof, disqualified for the duties of citizenship and of caring for themselves. Such institutions are mere instrumentalities of the state government brought into being to aid in the performance of governmental duty, hence the rule of respondent superior does not apply to them. Appellee cannot therefore be made to respond in damages for a personal injury inflicted upon another by its servant, or a lunatic in its charge, though such injury results from negligence or malicious act on the part of such servant or lunatic.

In the case of Williamson v. Louisville Industrial School of Reform, 95 Ky. 251, 24 S.W. 1065, 23 L. R. A. 200, 44 Am. St. Rep. 243, it was held by this court that an action would not lie against that institution for an assault upon an infant inmate by an employé of the institution. The reasons for so holding are thus stated in the opinion: "The incorporators and their successors are under the control and oversight of the Legislature, and are mere instrumentalities of the commonwealth. The state interposes in behalf of neglected and abandoned children within its confines in its capacity of parens patriæ, and assumed guardianship of such children as were committed to the institution. It was an agency of the state and maintained by taxation and state aid. *** The functions of the institution are governmental. *** If the funds of these institutions are to be diverted from their intended beneficent purposes by lawsuits and judgments for damages for negligent or malicious servants, their influence indeed their existence, will soon be a thing of the past." An examination of the following authorities will show that they are in entire accord with the case supra: Farnham v. Pierce, 141 Mass. 203, 6 N.E. 830, 55 Am. Rep. 452; Perry v. House of Refuge, 63 Md. 20, 52 Am. Rep. 495; Hearns v. Waterbury Hospital (Conn.) 33 A. 595, 31 L. R. A. 224; Fire Insurance Patrol v. Boyd, 120 Pa. 624, 15 A. 553, 1 L. R. A. 417, 6 Am. St. Rep. 745; Downs v. Harper Hospital (Mich.) 60 N.W. 42, 25 L. R. A. 602, 45 Am. St. Rep. 427; Benton v. Trustees of City Hospital (Mass.) 1 N. E. 836, 54 Am. Rep. 436; City of Richmond v. Long's Adm'r, 94 Am. Dec. 461. The doctrine in question has also been held to exempt...