Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott
| Decision Date | 12 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1271A253,1271A253 |
| Parties | MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF SOUTH BEND, INC., Appellant (Defendant Below), v. Richard E. SCOTT, Appellee (Plaintiff Below), Justin Keenan, M.D. and Bernard A. Mason, M.D., Appellees (Defendants Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Roland Obenchain, South Bend, for appellant.
J. Chester Allen, Jr., Arthur A. May of Crumpacker, May, Levy & Searer, South Bend, for appellees.
STATEMENT ON THE APPEAL: Dr. Mason had made a tentative diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. To confirm this diagnosis, he requested that Richard E. Scott be examined by Dr. Keenan at the Memorial Hospital. While using the bathroom facilities in his room at the hospital, Richard E. Scott turned the hot water knob connected to the bedpan flusher behind the toilet. Hot water severely burned his back and legs. He filed a cause of action against the Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. for alleged negligence. Later, he filed additional causes of action against both doctors for alleged malpractice. Damages were demanded in the total sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars.
These several causes of action were tried by jury. Dr. Mason filed a motion for judgment on the evidence under Rule TR. 50 of the Indiana Rules of Procedure IC 1971, 34-5-1-1, which was granted. The actions against Memorial Hospital and Dr. Keenan were submitted to the jury which found in their favor. A negative verdict was returned by the jury. Richard E. Scott filed his motion to correct errors. The motion was sustained as to Memorial Hospital but denied as to Doctors Mason and Keenan.
Memorial Hospital brings this appeal contending that the trial court committed error by granting Richard E. Scott a new trial. Richard E. Scott has filed cross-errors contending that the trial court should have granted his motion to correct errors as to Doctors Mason and Keenan.
In our opinion which follows, we reverse the trial court's judgment wherein it grants Richard E. Scott's motion to correct errors as to Memorial Hospital and affirm the trial court's judgment wherein it denies Richard E. Scott's motion to correct errors as to Doctors Mason and Keenan.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS: Multiple sclerosis was the tentative diagnosis after a second visit to Dr. Mason. He suggested that Richard E. Scott be admitted to Memorial Hospital so that the diagnosis might be confirmed. Dr. Keenan, a specialist in neurology, would perform the diagnostic tests. On August 26, 1967 Richard E. Scott was admitted to Memorial Hospital for a spinal tap, skull x-ray, brain scan and confirmatory diagnosis.
When Mary Ann Freed came on duty September 4, 1967 at 10:00 o'clock A.M., the supervising nurse suggested that she go to Three West. There, she was to assist Richard E. Scott. Her testimony explains what took place that morning:
'I checked the records and orders to see what was going on with Mr. Scott's case. I found that he had had a lumbar puncture earlier that morning and that he had been prepared with an injection with a type of sedative. (R. 425) It was fifty milligrams of Thoracin. When I came on duty that morning Mr. Scott was resting quietly in bed, his mother was there and it appeared that he had been dozing off and on most of the morning. He woke up and talked to me and seemed alert. He looked like someone that had just wakened up, not drugged and not dopey, a little sleepy. We had a discussion about what his schedule would be that morning. I asked him if he was ready to take his bath and get cleaned up for the morning.
It was getting on towards noon hour, time for lunch. He decided he didn't want to take a bath at that time. (R. 426) He said he just didn't feel up to it right at that time. We decided that I would make his bed and straighten up his bedding so he got up in his chair. I believe I did assist him to his chair. Then I started making his bed and he decided that he wanted to go to the bathroom so I assisted him into the bathroom and left him in there and proceeded to make the bed. The door was closed. When I helped him in the bathroom I presumed he was going to go to the toilet. I don't recall actually helping him be seated. I don't remember. (R. 427) Mr. Scott was in the bathroom two or three minutes before I did anything. I called to him to ask him if he was all right and he said, 1
Richard E. Scott filed a cause of action against the Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. on September 25, 1968. Later, on March 14, 1969, he filed an amended complaint adding Dr. Mason and Dr. Keenan as defendants. A jury trial began on November 16, 1970 which resulted in the granting of a motion for judgment on the evidence as to Dr. Mason and a negative verdict as to Memorial Hospital and Dr. Keenan. Richard E. Scott filed his motion to correct errors on December 18, 1970. The trial court ruled upon his motion to correct errors approximately 10 months later on September 27, 1971 and granted a new trial as to Memorial Hospital. Richard E. Scott's motion to correct errors was denied as to Doctors Mason and Keenan. Memorial Hospital appealed and Richard E. Scott filed cross-errors. Oral argument was concluded before this Court at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana on October 6, 1972.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: The issues will be treated separately as they relate to each of the several litigants. First, Memorial Hospital's appeal of the trial court's granting of a new trial as to it only will be discussed. In this inquiry, we are restricted in our consideration to the propriety of the trial court's ruling and to the specific reasons set forth in its granting of Richard E. Scott's motion. Holcomb v. Miller (1971), Ind.App., 269 N.E.2d 885.
Secondly, Richard E. Scott's cross-errors on appeal seek a review of the trial court's propriety of granting Dr. Mason's motion for judgment on the evidence under Rule TR. 50 of the Indiana Rules of Procedure and whether the issue of contributory negligence should have been withdrawn from the jury. These issues will be discussed under separate sections denominated by the names of Memorial Hospital, Dr. Mason and Dr. Keenan. It is Richard E. Scott's contention that the trial court should have granted a new trial as to each of the doctors as well as to Memorial Hospital.
STATEMENT OF THE LAW:
I.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Memorial Hospital and Dr. Keenan. This negative verdict by the jury could have several implications: (1) The jury felt that Richard E. Scott failed to prove any negligence on the part of Memorial Hospital or Dr. Keenan; (2) The jury felt that Memorial Hospital and Dr. Keenan had met their burden of proving that Richard E. Scott was contributorily negligent; or (3) both of the foregoing propositions.
The trial court's ruling indicates that it did not consider the jury's verdict in accord with the evidence. 2 Such a ruling in the present case must incorporate two premises: (1) that Memorial Hospital was negligent and (2) that Richard E. Scott was not contributorily negligent. If the trial court's ruling is incorrect as to either premise, the jury's verdict must stand and the trial court's ruling as to Memorial Hospital must be reversed.
We will first examine the trial court's ruling which sustained Richard E. Scott's motion to correct errors as to premise two, contributory negligence. The trial court stated in its ruling that:
'The court finds no evidence of his prior knowledge of the presence of the bed pan flusher installation, no evidence of his awareness of danger of hot water being emitted from the flusher mounted behind his back, and no evidence of his assumption or incurral of the risk of being scalded while using the bathroom stool.' 3
As to Memorial Hospital's burden of proof, the trial court stated:
'The court finds no evidence of his prior knowledge of the presence of the bed pan flusher installation, no evidence of his awareness of danger of hot water . . .'
The basis of the trial court's ruling is that the verdict 'is not supported by (any of) the evidence.' 4
A cursory reading of Riesbeck Drug Co. v. Wray (1942), 111 Ind.App. 467, 39 N.E.2d 776, would support the assumption that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Com'rs of Delaware County v. Briggs
...when a motion for judgment on the evidence is made at the close of all of the evidence. Rule TR. 50; Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 80. Any error in the ruling on the motion for judgment on the evidence at the close of plaintiff's case in chief i......
-
Myers v. Maris
...of the moving party. Wroblewski v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. (1971), 150 Ind.App. 327, 276 N.E.2d 567; Memorial Hospital of South Bend v. Scott (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 80; Johnson v. Mills, supra. In examining the evidence the trial judge must draw all fair and rational inferences in......
-
Huff v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...favor of the non-moving party. Smith v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Co. (1974), Ind.App., 311 N.E.2d 462; Memorial Hospital of South Bend v. Scott (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 80 (transfer granted on other grounds at 300 N.E.2d 50). The trial court should not grant the motion for judgment ......
-
Adkins v. Elvard
...evidence'. Wroblewski v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. (1971), Ind.App., 276 N.E.2d 567, 571. See also: Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 80; Farmer v. Werner Transp. Co. (1972), Ind.App., 284 N.E.2d 861; Mamula v. Ford Motor Co. (1971), Ind.App., 275......