Mahoney v. Harley Private Hosp., Inc.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtWAIT
Citation279 Mass. 96,180 N.E. 723
Decision Date21 April 1932
PartiesMAHONEY v. HARLEY PRIVATE HOSPITAL, Inc.

279 Mass. 96
180 N.E. 723

MAHONEY
v.
HARLEY PRIVATE HOSPITAL, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 21, 1932.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Brown, Judge.

Action by John J. Mahoney, p. p. a., against the Harley Private Hospital, Inc. From the refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant, it brings exceptions.

Overruled.


[279 Mass. 97]J. J. Donahue, of Boston, for plaintiff.

L. Powers, of Boston, for defendant.

[180 N.E. 724]


WAIT, J.

The single question presented is whether there was error in a refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant in this action for negligent injury to the infant plaintiff by some one for whom the defendant was responsible, and in refusing to charge that there was no evidence that if the plaintiff received a burn while in the hospital, it was received through negligence of the defendant, its servants or agents.

There was evidence that the plaintiff's mother was admitted to the defendant's hospital, and contracted with it for the care of the infant whose birth was expected. The child was born on November 4, 1927. It was in perfect condition at 10 p. m. on November 12, 1927. At 2 a. m. on November 13, when brought to its mother for nursing, a ruptured ‘bleb’ or broken blister was found on its neck which could have been caused by a burn. The mother was in a room on the first floor of the hospital. The child was kept with fifteen to twenty other babies in a room on the second floor, from which it was brought to the mother to be nursed. In this room, and at all times except when with the mother, it was exclusively in the care and control of the defendant and its employees. The room was visited [279 Mass. 98]only by doctors having patients at the hospital and by employees of the defendant. On the night of November 12 to 13 it was exclusively in charge of two nurses in the defendant's employ. It was their duty to record any happening to the child. No record of the appearance of the bleb during the night in question was made by the nurses in charge. On the morning of November 13 at 6 a. m. the mother requested a nurse to notify her husband and Dr. Leete, her attending physician, that the baby had been burned. No message was received by either. About November 21, the father requested the defendant's treasurer to be permitted to see the records. He was refused. Dr. Leete saw the child on the afternoon of November 12 when he found it perfectly normal, and on the afternoon of November 13 when he found a second degree burn on his neck and left shoulder about three by four inches in area. He was given no information by the nurses in regard to what had happened to the child. The nursery was heated by a steam radiator three feet high of nine or ten coils, between two windows. A desk backed up to the radiator. The room was piped with hot water under thermostatic control. A hospital rule forbade the use of hot water bottles unless upon written order of the physician in charge of the baby. No such order was given by Dr. Leete. The bill of exceptions recites that ‘there was no evidence that a hot water bottle was used.’ The nurse who relieved the night nurses at 6 a. m. on November 13 testified that when she bathed the baby at 8 a. m. she noticed the ruptured bleb which had not been present when she bathed him on November 12; and that neither night nurse reported to her anything relative to burn or blister, nor made written report about it; but that on the afternoon of November 13 she heard Dr. Leete say the baby had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Com. v. Raymond
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 7, 1997
    ...which it may possess." Commonwealth v. Keevan, 400 Mass. 557, 562, 511 N.E.2d 534 (1987), quoting Mahoney v. Harley Private Hosp., Inc., 279 Mass. 96, 100, 180 N.E. 723 (1932). Because this is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree, however, we must consider whether the j......
  • Com. v. Keevan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 10, 1987
    ...may be weighed with the other evidence, and given any evidentiary value which it may possess." Mahoney v. Harley Private Hosp., Inc., 279 Mass. 96, 100, 180 N.E. 723 (1932). See Abraham v. Woburn, 383 Mass. 724, 726-727 n. 1, 421 N.E.2d 1206 (1981); P.J. Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 74 (5......
  • Com. v. Paniaqua
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 15, 1992
    ...whatever effect the jury may deem appropriate. Indeed, the court said in Keevan, supra, quoting Mahoney v. Harley Private Hosp., Inc., 279 Mass. 96, 100, 180 N.E. 723 (1932), "Hearsay, once admitted, may be weighed with the other evidence, and given any evidentiary value which it may posses......
  • Pochi v. Brett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 13, 1946
    ...Inc., 261 Mass. 336, 339, 158 N.E. 768;Du Bois v. Powdrell, 271 Mass. 394, 397, 171 N.E. 474;Mahoney v. Harley Private Hospital, Inc., 279 Mass. 96, 100, 180 N.E. 723; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., § 1361, footnote 1. The defendant did not seek to limit the scope of the report. Drew v. Drew,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Com. v. Raymond
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 7, 1997
    ...which it may possess." Commonwealth v. Keevan, 400 Mass. 557, 562, 511 N.E.2d 534 (1987), quoting Mahoney v. Harley Private Hosp., Inc., 279 Mass. 96, 100, 180 N.E. 723 (1932). Because this is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree, however, we must consider whether the j......
  • Com. v. Keevan
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 10, 1987
    ...may be weighed with the other evidence, and given any evidentiary value which it may possess." Mahoney v. Harley Private Hosp., Inc., 279 Mass. 96, 100, 180 N.E. 723 (1932). See Abraham v. Woburn, 383 Mass. 724, 726-727 n. 1, 421 N.E.2d 1206 (1981); P.J. Liacos, Massachusetts Evidence 74 (5......
  • Com. v. Paniaqua
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 15, 1992
    ...whatever effect the jury may deem appropriate. Indeed, the court said in Keevan, supra, quoting Mahoney v. Harley Private Hosp., Inc., 279 Mass. 96, 100, 180 N.E. 723 (1932), "Hearsay, once admitted, may be weighed with the other evidence, and given any evidentiary value which it may posses......
  • Pochi v. Brett
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 13, 1946
    ...Inc., 261 Mass. 336, 339, 158 N.E. 768;Du Bois v. Powdrell, 271 Mass. 394, 397, 171 N.E. 474;Mahoney v. Harley Private Hospital, Inc., 279 Mass. 96, 100, 180 N.E. 723; Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., § 1361, footnote 1. The defendant did not seek to limit the scope of the report. Drew v. Drew,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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