Lucy Webb Hayes National Training School v. Geoghegan
| Citation | 281 F. Supp. 116 |
| Decision Date | 28 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 1137-67. |
| Parties | LUCY WEBB HAYES NATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOL FOR DEACONESSES AND MISSIONARIES, etc., Plaintiff, v. Thomas D. GEOGHEGAN, Ellen S. Geoghegan, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
The plaintiff's prima facie case tends to show the following facts: that defendant Ellen S. Geoghegan has been a patient for a considerable length of time at Sibley Memorial Hospital, which is maintained and operated by the plaintiff corporation. The hospital is a private hospital. Evidence has been further introduced tending to show that the hospital came to the conclusion that the patient no longer needs hospital care but can be adequately provided for at a nursing home.
After a series of negotiations on June 2nd, 1967 the president of the hospital corporation made a formal demand on the defendant Thomas Geoghegan, the husband of the other defendant, that Ellen Geoghegan, his wife, be transferred from Sibley Memorial Hospital. This demand is worded as follows: "I again request you to make arrangements for the transfer of your wife, Ellen Geoghegan, from Sibley Memorial Hospital." The mere fact that the polite word "request" is used does not detract from the tenor of the letter as a demand.
What, then, is the status of the defendant Ellen Geoghegan when her departure from the hospital has been demanded by the hospital? Manifestly she becomes a trespasser. This action is brought for an injunction to require her removal from the hospital as a trespasser. Obviously an action for damages would be an inadequate remedy.
A private hospital has a right to accept or decline any patient. It has a moral duty to reserve its accommodations for persons who actually need medical and hospital care and it would be a deviation from its purposes to act as a nursing home for aged persons who do not need constant medical care but who need nursing care. There are homes for the aged, there are nursing homes and similar institutions. Hospitals have a duty not to permit their facilities to be diverted to the uses for which hospitals are not intended.
The correspondence introduced in evidence shows that the male defendant takes the position that his wife should remain in the hospital for the remainder of her life. For the hospital to permit that would be to allow a diversion of its facilities to purposes for which they are not intended and would not be in the public interest. An action for damages, of course, would present no solution so far as the plaintiff is concerned because the husband is able and willing to pay whatever the hospital would charge.
It has been established for a great many years that equity will enjoin a continuing trespass or a series of repeated trespasses where an action for damages would not be an adequate remedy. There is a leading English case on that point, London & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Co., Law Reports 4 Equity Cases 174, 179. The Supreme Court has approved and enforced this doctrine on many occasions, Watson v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger
...96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952); Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 537, 5 S.Ct. 565, 28 L.Ed. 1116 (1885); Lucy Webb Hayes Nat'l Training School for Deaconesses & Missionaries v. Geoghegan, 281 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1967); 6A J. SACKMAN, NICHOLS' THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN Sec. 28.3 (3d ed. 1981).121 See supra n......
-
Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger, 83-1950
...96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952); Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 537, 5 S.Ct. 560, 28 L.Ed. 1113 (1885); Lucy Webb Hayes Nat'l Training School for Deaconesses & Missionaries v. Geoghegan, 281 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1967); 6A J. SACKMAN, NICHOLS' THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN Sec. 28.3 (3rd ed. 1981).54 See Semmes ......
-
Hayes-Albion v. Kuberski
...S.E.2d 703 (1967) (quoting with approval Jones v. Lassiter, 169 N.C. 750, 86 S.E. 710 [1915]. See also Lucy Webb Hayes Nat'l Training School v. Goeghegan, 281 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1967).12 See E.I. DuPont de Nemours Power Co. v. Masland, 244 U.S. 100, 102, 37 S.Ct. 575, 61 L.Ed. 1016 (1917); ......
-
Caesar v. Westchester Corp.
...residents and their guests. Damages are thus not an adequate remedy. See, e.g. , Lucy Webb Hayes Nat'l Training Sch. for Deaconesses & Missionaries v. Geoghegan , 281 F. Supp. 116, 117-18 (D.D.C. 1967) (holding that damages were inadequate and an injunction was warranted where a patient ref......