Martinson v. City of Alpena

• Decision Date: 02 October 1950
• Docket Number: No. 73,73
• Citation: 44 N.W.2d 148,328 Mich. 595
• Parties: MARTINSON v. CITY OF ALPENA et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 148

44 N.W.2d 148

328 Mich. 595

MARTINSON v. CITY OF ALPENA et al.

No. 73.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 2, 1950.

Isadore Isackson, Alpena, for plaintiff and appellant.

Carl R. Henry, William F. Knapp, Philip J. Glennie, Alpena, for defendant, City of Alpena.

Before the Entire Bench.

BUTZEL, Justice.

Madeleine Martinson, a special nurse, brought an action against the city of Alpena for injuries sustained when she fell down the elevator shaft at the Alpena General Hospital. The safety catch had failed to prevent the guard door from being opened when elevator was at another floor. At the conclusion of proofs, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the grounds of governmental immunity and contributory negligence. The trial court reserved ruling under the Empson Act, C.L. 1948, § 691.691, Stat.Ann. 1949 Cum.Supp. § 27.1461, and submitted the case to the jury. A verdict for plaintiff was returned and the court in entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, held that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both grounds. Plaintiff appeals. We need only discuss the question of governmental immunity of the municipal corporation.

The Alpena General Hospital was opened in April, 1940. It had been constructed at a cost of $258,000, which was raised as follows: $121,000 through the issuance of general obligation bonds authorized by the voters of the municipality; approximately $100,000 through a Federal works agency grant; and the remainder by individual contributions. Since 1940 there have been additional private donations and the city has made considerable further expenditures on the buildings and grounds.

The facilities and services of the hospital were not restricted to residents of the city, but were available to the entire surrounding area. The ward for contagious diseases was used for general purposes when there were no isolation cases. Patients were admitted through staff doctors and were required to pay the established rates. The county welfare board paid the bill of indigent patients.

At the date of trial the city taxpayers had paid $40,000 in reduction of the bonded indebtedness and $17,974.18 in interest on the bonds. The city did not charge the hospital for the water furnished or for services performed for the institution by salaried municipal employees. The city appropriated a total of $24,710.80 to the hospital during the first three years of its existence, though not thereafter, and the county made an annual $5,000 appropriation to the institution.

The balance sheet in the record shows that after a deduction for bad debts the hospital had an operating loss every year of its existence except the 1943-1944 fiscal year and that its aggregate operating deficit alone since 1940 was in excess of $26,000. This figure, which reflects neither the city and county appropriations nor the depreciation of the buildings and equipment, negatives plaintiff's contention that the hospital is operated at an incidental profit.

A majority of jurisdictions adhere to the rule that a hospital maintained by a State or a political subdivision thereof is immune from tort liability. See the annotation in 49 A.L.R. 379. The test of governmental immunity has been stated as follows: 'The underlying test is whether the act is for the common good of all without the element of special corporate benefit or pecuniary profit. If it is, there is no liability; if it is...