Ratliffe v. Wesley Hospital and Nurses' Training School

• Decision Date: 07 May 1932
• Docket Number: 30270.
• Citation: 10 P.2d 859,135 Kan. 306
• Parties: RATLIFFE v. WESLEY HOSPITAL AND NURSES' TRAINING SCHOOL et al.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

10 P.2d 859

135 Kan. 306

RATLIFFE v. WESLEY HOSPITAL AND NURSES' TRAINING SCHOOL et al.

No. 30270.

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 7, 1932

Syllabus by the Court.

Charity hospital is not liable for negligence of physicians attendants, and employees resulting in injury to patients.

Doctrine of "res ipsa loquitor" raises inference of negligence, in absence of direct evidence, but is not in itself evidence of negligence.

Failure of nurse, engaged by patient, to examine equipment, furnished by hospital for care of patient, for latent defects, does not constitute negligence.

1. A charitable hospital is not liable for the negligence of its physicians, attendants, and employees resulting in injury to its patients. Nicholson v. Hospital Association, 97 Kan. 480, 155 P. 920, L.R.A. 1916D, 1029.

2. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur raises an inference of negligence, under certain circumstances, in the absence of direct evidence. It is not in itself evidence of negligence and has no force in the presence of direct evidence.

3. The failure of a nurse to examine equipment, furnished her for the care of her patient by a hospital, for latent defects, is not negligence.

Appeal from District Court, Sedgwick County, Division No. 1; J Everett Alexander, Judge.

Action by Mary Ratliffe against the Wesley Hospital and Nurses' Training School and another. Judgment in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appeals.

Doctrine of "res ipsa loquitur" raises inference of negligence, in absence of direct evidence, but is not in itself evidence of negligence.

George W. Cox, Lawrence Weigand, and A. Cale Blakely, all of Wichita, for appellant.

W. A Ayres, Austin M. Cowan, C. A. McCorkle, J. D. Fair, and W. A. Kahrs, all of Wichita, for appellee Blanche Kessler.

Arnold C. Todd, James G. Norton, Carl O. Bauman, and Julian E. Ralston, all of Wichita, for appellee the Wesley Hospital and Nurses' Training School.

SLOAN J.

This action was one to recover damages for a personal injury received in a hospital. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence, and the plaintiff appeals.

The appellee the Wesley Hospital and Nurses' Training School is a corporation organized under the laws of Kansas for the purpose of maintaining a benevolent and charitable institution for ministering to the indigent, sick, and wounded. At the time of the accident complained of, it was maintaining a hospital and nurses' training school in the city of Wichita. The appellee Blanche Kessler was a graduate nurse. The appellant, on the advice of her physician, Dr. H. W. Horn, entered the hospital on February 12, 1929, to undergo a surgical operation. She arranged with the hospital to furnish her a room and all the facilities and equipment necessary for the operation. Dr. Horn was her physician and surgeon, and she employed the appellee Blanche Kessler as a special nurse to aid in the operation and care for her while she was confined in the hospital. On February 14, 1929, the appellant was given two hypodermics, prepared and taken to the operating room where the operation was performed. She was returned to her room, but did not regain consciousness for three days when she discovered that she had been severely and seriously burned with hot water. The nurse, Kessler, told her that the string broke on the proctoclysis set and let the hot water fall into the bed.

Dr. Horn directed the nurse to use the proctoclysis, known as the "Murphy drip." While the operation was in progress a student nurse in the employ of the hospital prepared the room for the return of the appellant. The proctoclysis set was a part of the equipment of the hospital and was assembled and placed at or near the foot of the bed by the student nurse. The proctoclysis set consists of a standard which is an iron pole setting on a tripod containing hooks at intervals, and on these hooks by means of a chain, tape, string, or piece of gauze is hung a can containing hot water and soda solution. From this can a tube extends which is inserted in the rectum of the patient to whom the proctoclysis is administered. It was necessary to keep the solution hot in order that it would have a body temperature after dropping through the tube and entering the body. After the appellant was returned to the bed, the appellee Kessler moved the proctoclysis set along the right side of the bed about even with the hips of the appellant. She went to the other side of the bed and was taking the pulse of the patient when the string broke and let the water down into the bed, which resulted in the appellant's injury. The vessel containing the hot water and soda solution was fastened to the standard with a piece of gauze. There was evidence to the effect that the equipment was standard and that it was not unusual for the vessel holding the water to be fastened to the standard by gauze, string, or other bandage, although a part of the vessels were equipped with chains.

The trial court sustained a demurrer to the evidence holding that the hospital was a charitable institution and not liable for the negligence of its employees, and that the evidence did not show negligence on the part of the appellee Kessler. This is assigned as error and is here for review.

It is established by appellant's evidence that the appellee hospital was a charitable institution organized and maintained for the purpose of ministering to the indigent, sick, and wounded. It is contended, however, that there is evidence sufficient to take it out of the established rule of this jurisdiction that a charitable institution is not liable for the negligence of its physicians, attendants, and employees resulting in injuries to its patients. Nicholson v. Hospital Association, 97 Kan. 480, 155 P. 920, L.R.A. 1916D, 1029; Davin v. Benevolent Association, 103 Kan. 48, 172 P. 1002; Webb v. Vought, 127 Kan. 799, 275 P. 170.

It is alleged in the petition that the appellee failed to exercise reasonable...