Potter v. Richards, 20445
| Decision Date | 19 April 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 20445,20445 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Lloyd POTTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ezra RICHARDS et al., Defendants. Inglewood General Hospital, Respondent. Civ. A. |
Edward B. Freed, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Reed & Kirtland, Robert C. Packard and Henry E. Kappler, Los Angeles, for respondent.
From a judgment of dismissal as to defendant Inglewood General Hospital, predicated upon the sustaining without leave to amend of demurrers, both general and special, to the fifth amended complaint in an action to recover damages for wrongful death and personal injuries, plaintiff appeals. *
The fifth amended complaint is a plethora of words, a marvel of redundancy and a masterpiece of prolixity.
Analyzing the pleading, it discloses the following:
Paragraph I: Contains merely a general allegation of residence of the parties.
Paragraph II: Embraces the usual allegations respecting persons sued by fictitious names.
Paragraph III: It is alleged that the defendants Dr. Richards and the Inglewood General Hospital were acting in concert with each other and by and for themselves alone.
Paragraph IV: That the defendant James Beatty, a minor, was the issue of the marriage between plaintiff and the decedent, but that he is no longer an heirof the decedent since he has been adopted by other persons.
Paragraph V: This paragraph, over two pages in length, appears in general to contain the following allegations:
(a) That on or about June 1st the plaintiff with his wife, who was then believed to be pregnant, retained Dr. Ezra Richards, pursuant to an oral contract, to render medical care and treatment to the decedent;
(b) That plaintiff and his deceased wife, for a fee, agreed with the doctor that he would diagnose her then condition; that he would make continued diagnoses of her condition during pregnancy, continuous diagnoses of her condition in the post partum period until her discharge; that he would take a personal history, family history, a physiological and biological analyses of the decedent at that time and until such time as she should have regained the physical condition which she had prior to her pregnancy and he would obtain all information and analysis relative to care and treatment in consequence of previous pregnancies, if any, miscarriages, if any, medical history; that he would render periodic physical examinations during the progressive steps of pregnancy, periodic physical examinations after delivery of the child and during such period of time until she regained the same physiological and biological status that had existed prior to her pregnancy; that he would maintain and improve her health during the course of her pregnancy and return her health to a condition at least as good as prior to the pregnancy; that he would render total care of her as an individual during all of the foregoing times and would deliver the child, obtain and retain an adequately staffed and prepared hospital; that the hospital should be adequately prepared for any emergency which they knew or should have known might reasonably arise; that the hospital would perform in accordance with the doctor's direction, the care and treatment of the decedent during the onset of labor, during labor and the post partum care after delivery, involving the opening of the mouth of the uterus to full capacity, or if necessary, the performance of a caesarian section, together with rendering care and treatment in the event of an emergency. It is further alleged that the plaintiff and his deceased wife agreed with the doctor that he should take such steps a were proper to deliver the child, including the severance of the cord and the deliver of the placenta and to take personal car and supervision of the decedent for that period known medically as one of imminent danger to the mother, within an hour to two hours after delivery of the child, to call and consult with outside physician that might be necessary if an emergency arose, to retain, care for and treat the mother during the post partum period and to care for and treat the mother during the balance of the post partum period until the body returned to a normal, non-pregnant state.
Paragraph VI: It is herein alleged that thereafter and until the death of the decedent on January 22, 1952, the plaintiff was under the total, uninterrupted and continuous care of the doctor and of his selected hospital, the Inglewood General Hospital.
Paragraph VII: Paragraph VII merely alleges that the defendant Dr. Richards recommended that the decedent be placed in the care and custody of the Inglewood General Hospital as a part and parcel of his care and treatment of the decedent.
Paragraph VIII: In this paragraph it is alleged that the decedent, pursuant to the doctor's direction, placed herself in the custody and control and became a patient in the Inglewood General Hospital and that she did thereafter at all times remain in the care, custody and control, jointly and severally, of the hospital and Dr. Richards.
Paragraph IX: Paragraph IX appears to be an attempt on the part of pleader to set forth the manner in which it is claimed that Dr. Richards was negligent in and about the care and treatment of the deceased wife. No effort will be made to analyze these lengthy allegations, since they do not pertain to respondent Inglewood General Hospital.
Paragraph X: Paragraph X relates solely to the conduct of the respondent Richards and the causal connection between the alleged negligence of Richards and the death of the decedent.
Paragraph XI: Paragraph XI is the critical paragraph in so far as the respondent hospital is concerned. It represents appellants belabored and ineffectual effort to comply with liberal rules of pleading negligence, which have long been followed by our appellate courts. The very length of this paragraph demonstrates that plaintiff actually is merely giving lip service to the settled rules; he could easily plead his cause of action in a single short paragraph, if he in fact had any cause of action to plead.
It is alleged that the hospital was negligent and careless in that:
1. It was inadequately staffed as to personnel;
2. It is inadequately prepared as to facilities and supplies for the care and treatment of decedent or for any emergency that might and did arise in connection with the care and treatment of the decedent during her labor and during the time of delivery and during the post partum period immediately succeeding delivery and until the time of her death.
Paragraph XII alleges that the Inglewood General Hospital was a private institution, acting for and on behalf of themselves and the defendant Richards.
Paragraph XIII: Plaintiff has been deprived of the services, society, comfort, etc. of the decedent, to his damage in the sum of $35,000.
Paragraph...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Cnty. of Fresno
... ... action.” (citing Potter v. Richards , 132 ... Cal.App. 2d 380, 385, 282 P.2d 113 (1955))). Officer ... ...
-
Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp.
...from negligence, the complaint must contain allegations as to all the elements of actionable negligence. (Potter v. Richards (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 380, 385, 282 P.2d 113.) Negligence involves the violation of a legal duty imposed by statute, contract or otherwise, by the defendant to the pe......
-
Berkley v. Dowds
...negligence has caused him injury." (Guilliams v. Hollywood Hospital (1941) 18 Cal.2d 97, 101, 114 P.2d 1; Potter v. Richards (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 380, 384-385, 282 P.2d 113.) The FACC failed to describe Herron's injury in any manner, other than to allege that he was deprived of the "possib......
-
Golden v. Dungan
...Parks (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 756, 766, 343 P.2d 118; Hinman v. Wagnon (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 24, 29, 341 P.2d 749; Potter v. Richards (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 380, 385, 282 P.2d 113.) On the other hand, the following rule is well recognized, 'On appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to a ......