Misfeldt v. Hospital Authority of City of Marietta, 38270

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: TOWNSEND
• Citation: Misfeldt v. Hospital Authority of City of Marietta, 115 S.E.2d 244, 101 Ga.App. 579 (Ga. App. 1960)
• Decision Date: 14 April 1960
• Docket Number: No. 38270,No. 2,38270,2
• Parties: E. W. MISFELDT v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF MARIETTA

Page 244

115 S.E.2d 244

101 Ga.App. 579

E. W. MISFELDT v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF MARIETTA.

No. 38270.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

April 14, 1960.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court.

The court should not direct a verdict unless the evidence, with all reasonable and probable deductions therefrom, demands a verdict in favor of the winning party. The evidence here, construed in favor of the plaintiff, presented a jury question as to whether the hospital authorities were put on notice of her mentally incompetent condition so that their subsequent failure to attend her, during which time she escaped from a bathroom window on the third floor and jumped to the ground, sustaining certain specified injuries, constituted negligence on the part of the defendant.

This is the second appearance of this case. In Hospital Authority of the City of Marietta v. Misfeldt, 99 Ga.App. 702, 109 S.E.2d 816, 817 it was held: 'The petition seeking to recover damages including medical expenses, hospital expenses, loss of services of and loss of consortium of the plaintiff's wife, a paying patient, arising out of the alleged negligence of the defendant, through its agents and servants, in failing to place the plaintiff's wife in the security ward, as directed by her physician, while she was in a mentally disturbed condition of which defendant had actual notice or which it should have discovered through the exercise of ordinary care, in failing to keep constant and continuous watch and care over the plaintiff's wife while in said condition, in failing to administer certain prescribed medicines to sedate and tranquilize said wife and in allowing plaintiff's wife while in said mentally disturbed condition to wander some 50 feet down a hallway, lock herself in a bathroom, climb into the window thereof and fall from said window three stories to the ground, sets forth a cause of action.' Without further amendment the case proceeded to trial. The undisputed facts showed that the plaintiff's wife, Mrs. Misfeldt, was admitted to the defendant hospital on October 29, 1957, at about 3 p. m., following a telephone call from her physician; that she was in the company of her husband who brought to the hospital certain written instructions for drugs, and a notation that the patient was ambulatory; that she was conducted to a ward room containing four beds, in which there was one other patient, that her husband stayed with her until about 4 p. m. and then told the nurse on duty that he would have to go home to the children. Just about 4 p. m. the patient was given phenobarbital, one of the drugs prescribed by the physician. About 4:15 p. m. she walked down the hall to a bathroom which had been pointed out for her use, locked the door, raised the window and jumped out, falling to the ground three stories below and sustaining severe injuries.

The evidence as to the plaintiff's appearance on entering the hospital, the oral instructions given by the physician, and the negligence of the defendant was in strong conflict. The court on motion of the defendant after the conclusion of the evidence directed a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff's motion for a new trial, containing ten grounds, was denied, and this judgment is assigned as error.

Holcomb & Grubbs, J. M. Grubbs, Jr., Marietta, for plaintiff in error.

Scott S. Edwards, Jr., Fred E. Bartlett, Marietta, for defendant in error.

TOWNSEND, Judge.

The sole issue for decision by this court is whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the case to go to a jury. In reaching a conclusion, the evidence together with all reasonable deductions and inferences from it must be construed in favor of the party against whom the verdict is directed. Whitaker v. Paden, 78 Ga.App. 145, 50 S.E.2d 774. Should the evidence be subject to more than one construction on a material issue, the case is for the jury. Whitlock v. Michael, 208 Ga. 229, 65 S.E.2d 797; Northwestern University v. Crisp, 211 Ga. 636, 647, 88 S.E.2d 26. So construed, the following evidence in favor of the plaintiff must be taken into consideration: The physician admitting the patient had made a provisional diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. He did not inform the hospital authorities directly of this diagnosis, but he did inform the admissions clerk by telephone when he first called to arrange for a room that the patient was mentally disturbed and that he would like to have her admitted to the 'psycho room.' There were three such rooms in the hospital especially prepared for patients suffering from mental disturbance. One of them was vacant at the time of the call. The admissions clerk relayed the message to the supervisor of admissions, including the statement that the patient was mentally disturbed. The supervisor of admissions had just learned that a former nurse wanted to bring her child in to have his tonsils removed the next day and wanted to spend the night with him; since the psycho rooms were used as private rooms on occasion she desired to place the little boy there so that his mother could sleep with him and she therefore told the admissions clerk that there was no psycho room available. The admissions clerk then informed the doctor, who next requested a private room. The admissions clerk again consulted the supervisor of admissions and was told there was no private room, although the psycho room was still vacant. On being informed, the physician said that under the...