Magnuson v. Swedish Hosp.

• Citation: 169 P. 828,99 Wash. 399
• Decision Date: 11 January 1918
• Docket Number: 14281.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: MAGNUSON v. SWEDISH HOSPITAL.

169 P. 828

99 Wash. 399

MAGNUSON v. SWEDISH HOSPITAL.

No. 14281.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 11, 1918

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John S. Jurey Judge.

Action by Elmer Magnuson, a minor, by Martin Magnuson, his guardian ad litem, against the Swedish Hospital, a corporation. Judgment dismissing the action, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Will H. Thompson, of Seattle, for appellant.

Saunders & Nelson, of Seattle, for respondent.

WEBSTER J.

This action was brought by Elmer Magnuson, a minor, by his guardian ad litem, against the Swedish Hospital, a corporation, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence.

The amended complaint charges in substance: That the Swedish Hospital is a charitable corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of this state, and is engaged in operating and conducting a hospital for the care and treatment of the sick and afflicted, without profit to the stockholders or organizers of that corporation. That on March 3, 1914, the plaintiff was an infant under the age of four years, and was suffering from a severe injury and physical malformation. On that date he was taken by his father, the guardian ad litem in this case, to the hospital to undergo a serious surgical operation, and thereafter to be nursed cared for, and treated. That after the operation had been performed the plaintiff was placed in charge of nurses in the employ of defendant whose duty it was under their employment to watch, care for, and restrain the plaintiff from interfering with the condition in which the injured parts had been left by the operating surgeon. That the nurses negligently and carelessly failed to guard and protect the plaintiff, and by reason thereof he removed his hands from the bandages in which they had been placed, and tore away the wrappings and protections to the lacerated parts, and otherwise seriously injured himself. That as a result the effectiveness of the operation was wholly destroyed, and it was rendered impossible ever to cure the affliction from which the plaintiff was suffering and to relieve which the operation was performed. That the defendant, at the time of accepting the plaintiff as a patient, demanded and received in advance from the father of the plaintiff the sum of $10 and is now prosecuting an action against the father to recover the additional sum of $64.50 for the care and treatment of the plaintiff. That by reason and on account of the negligence, carelessness, and heedlessness of the defendant, through the nurses in its employ, the plaintiff was so injured as to become a helpless invalid, and will so continue for the remainder of his natural life; and was thereby damaged in the sum of $25,000, for which amount judgment is prayed. To this amended complaint a demurrer was sustained upon the ground that the facts stated were not sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiff refused to plead further, whereupon judgment was entered dismissing the action, from which the plaintiff has appealed.

The single question for determination is whether a patient admitted to a hospital maintained for charity can recover against such hospital for injuries caused by the negligence of nurses therein employed. The articles of incorporation of the defendant, a copy of which is attached to the amended complaint, provide:

'The objects for which this corporation is formed are: First, to found, construct and maintain a hospital in the city of Seattle, aforesaid, which shall always be exclusively under the management and control of a board of trustees, who shall be of Swedish descent, except in so far as this provision may be modified by the compliance with the law of exceptions requiring the appointment of certain municipal officers as trustees ex officio; and said hospital shall be solely for the medical and surgical treatment and nursing of the sick and infirm, and no physician shall be a member of the medical staff who is not a regular practicing physician of the Allopathic school. It shall be the purpose of the trustees of this corporation to conduct the affairs of the same with a view of making the said hospital self-sustaining, but they shall, however, have the privilege of furnishing needy persons with gratuitous services at said hospital, and generally to provide for charitable help to such persons where the same may be necessary and proper, according to their best judgment and discretion. In the event that profits and income should accrue in the management of said hospital, the same shall, together with donations and contributions to this corporation from whatsoever source, become and remain the sole property of said corporation, and no member or officer of this corporation shall have any right, title or interest in the same, except in a fiduciary capacity; nor shall any donor or contributor to said hospital have any right, title or interest in the profits, income or any property belonging to said corporation, but the same shall be applied to the support, maintenance and enlargement of said hospital and its facilities after the payment of the expenses thereof.'

The articles further recite 'there shall be no capital stock, nor shares of stock issued.'

The question of whether a corporation which is organized for charitable purposes and which does not seek to profit by the enterprise in which it is engaged is liable for the negligence of those in its employ, where it is not contended that the corporation was negligent in the selection or retention of the person for whose conduct it is sought to be held, is not a new one in this court. In Richardson v. Carbon Hill Coal Co., 10 Wash. 648, 39 P. 95, the defendant deducted $1 each month from the wages of the men engaged in its service, and in return maintained a hospital and provided a physician for the sole purpose of relieving sick and injured employés, without additional expense to them, and with no intention on the part of the mining company of making any profit out of the undertaking. We there held that the corporation was a charitable institution so far as the hospital feature was concerned, and even though the company did employ the physician to care for and treat the sick and injured workmen, it was not liable for his negligence, but was responsible only for want of ordinary care in selecting him. This doctrine was reaffirmed in the case of Wells v. Ferry-Baker Lumber Co., 57 Wash. 658, 107 P. 869, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 426. Next came Wharton v. Warner et al., 75 Wash. 471, 135 P. 235, a case very similar in its facts to the one now under consideration.

In that action the defendant Upper Columbia Medical Missionary & Benevolent Society was a corporation organized for charitable purposes. Its articles stated that the object of the corporation was to found a medical and charitable sanitarium, hospital, and asylum at the city of Spokane and other points in the state for the care and relief of indigent or other sick or insane persons, that patients who were able to pay would also be received, but the funds and property acquired from all sources were to be devoted exclusively to the maintenance and improvement of the institution,...