Maretick v. South Chicago Cmty. Hosp.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1938
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 40160.
• Citation: 17 N.E.2d 1012,297 Ill.App. 488
• Parties: MARETICK v. SOUTH CHICAGO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

297 Ill.App. 488

17 N.E.2d 1012

MARETICK

v.SOUTH CHICAGO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL.

Gen. No. 40160.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Nov. 30, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1938.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; E. I. Frankhauser, Judge.

Action by George Maretick, minor, by Evelyn Maretick, his mother and next friend, against the South Chicago Community Hospital, for injuries sustained by plaintiff while a patient. From a judgment for defendant notwithstanding verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Royal W. Irwin, of Chicago, for appellant.

Edward W. Rawlins, James F. Wright, and Lee W. Carrier, all of Chicago, for appellee.

DENIS E. SULLIVAN, Justice.

A jury returned a verdict in the above entitled cause in favor of plaintiff for $45,000, for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while a patient in the South Chicago Community Hospital. After the verdict was returned by the jury, the court on motion of defendant entered a judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of defendant, and it is from that judgment that plaintiff brings this appeal.

The facts with relation to the accident are substantially as follows:

The plaintiff was born on October 6, 1926 in the South Chicago Community Hospital and was placed in a crib in the nursery with several other infants. During the night of October 12, 1926, a fire occurred in the nursery, which resulted in plaintiff's injury.

The fire apparently was caused by a defective electric light cord to which a globe was attached and which the hospital authorities had used to improvise an incubator by permitting the globe to hang over the crib and thereby furnish warmth to the baby. One of the witnesses who testified for plaintiff in referring to the electric light stated that “there was an old looking wire and at the end it was frayed, and all in threads. The light in it was burning about two feet above the infant in the crib. The clothing was over the crib. The globe was in the socket on the cord and hanging in this opening in the canopy” which was over the crib.

It appears that during the night, either because of the defective condition of the electric wiring or because of the close proximity of the light globe with the cotton bedding, the crib caught fire and the premature baby who was in that crib was burned to death and the fire communicated from that crib to the crib in which the plaintiff was sleeping and as a result of which plaintiff was injured.

An interne from the hospital stated, “A sort of canopy was put over one of the cots to make an improvised incubator. It was made of steel and an extension with a globe at the end. Cotton was around the globe and around the foot of the bed. The cotton was used to equalize the heat. The covering of the wire next to the socket was worn out. It had been in that condition for a month or two before the accident”.

The doctor in charge testified as to the physical condition in which he found plaintiff at the time of the trial.

There is no controversy as to the happening, cause or result of the injury sustained by plaintiff.

The principal and controlling question here involved is whether or not the hospital was a charitable organization. The proof submitted on behalf of plaintiff shows that the hospital was incorporated on December 18, 1895 under the name South Chicago Hospital, and that its object or purpose was “for general Hospital purposes”. Later, in 1908, the charter was amended and the purposes for which it was amended are set forth as follows: “The objects for which it is formed is for General Hospital purposes. Also to establish, conduct and carry on a Nurses Training School, a Nurses Home for Nurses while in training, and to issue diplomas for graduating nurses, including the right to furnish necessary object lessons in practical nursing and the giving of instructions in both theoretical and practical nursing of medical, surgical and obstetrical cases to the individual in training.”

From the above it will be seen that the corporation was one which was organized not for pecuniary profit, there being no capital stock issued, no provision for dividends or the usual powers granted to a profit making corporation.

In the case of People v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n, 365 Ill. 118, 6 N.E.2d 166, it was said:

“A charity, in law, is not confined to the relief of poverty or distress or to mere alms-giving but embraces the improvement and promotion of the happiness of man, and, whether it extends to the rich or to the poor, it is a charity if it is a gift to the general public use and relieves to some extent the burden of the State to care for and advance the interests of its citizens. * * *

“The charitable nature of an organization depends upon whether its primary object is to carry out a purpose recognized in law as charitable or whether it is maintained for gain, profit or private advantage, and an institution does not lose its charitable character by reason of the fact that recipients of its benefits who are able to pay are required to do so, where no profits are made by the institution except such as are devoted to charitable purposes and where its benefits are refused to none because of inability to pay therefor.”

We think it is conceded that if the defendant in this case is a charitable organization, as so defined in the law, that it is not liable for an action in tort for the negligence of its servants and employees.

In Johnston v. City of Chicago, 258 Ill. 494, at page 498, 101 N.E. 960, at page 962, 45 L.R.A.,N.S., 1167, Ann.Cas.1914B, 339, the court said: “A purely charitable corporation is by the weight of authority held not liable for the torts or neglect of its servants in the performance of their duties in carrying on the work of such corporation.”

In the case of Hogan v. Chicago Lyingin Hospital, 335 Ill. 42, 166 N.E. 461, plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for personal injuries which he sustained while a patient in the Chicago...