Rewis v. Grand Strand General Hosp., 22606
| Decision Date | 25 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22606,22606 |
| Citation | 290 S.C. 40,348 S.E.2d 173 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ruby M. REWIS, Respondent, v. GRAND STRAND GENERAL HOSPITAL, Appellant. |
David R. Gravely of Bellamy, Rutenberg, Copeland, Epps, Gravely & Bowers, P.A., Myrtle Beach, for appellant.
Eldridge R. Inman, Conway, for respondent.
In this negligence action, appellant (Hospital) contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. We disagree and affirm.
During the night of December 10, 1983, while a patient at the Hospital, respondent (Rewis) fell off of the foot of her hospital bed and broke her hip. Rewis' husband and son testified they were denied permission to remain with Rewis at night, even though they informed the nurses that when Rewis was sick she was subject to "black-out spells" during which she "wouldn't know what she was doing." Witnesses for the Hospital contradicted this testimony.
Rewis alleged that her fall out of bed and injuries resulted from the Hospital's negligence in failing to allow a family member to remain with her at night or, alternatively, to take precautions after being warned about her "spells." The Hospital's motions for involuntary nonsuit, directed verdict, new trial and judgment n.o.v. were denied.
The Hospital contends it was error to deny these motions because Rewis failed to prove that her fall was foreseeable and proximately caused by an act of the Hospital. In reviewing the denial of motions for involuntary nonsuit, directed verdict, new trial and judgment n.o.v., this Court must review the evidence and all inferences deducible from it in the light most favorable to the non- moving party. Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984). The issues of negligence and proximate cause must be submitted to the jury if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence. Id. Given the conflicting testimony on the Hospital's knowledge of Rewis' "spells," the issues of foreseeability and proximate cause were properly submitted to the jury.
The Hospital also argues that it was error to deny its motions because expert testimony on the standard of care required of a hospital under similar circumstances was necessary to support Rewis' cause of action. This is a novel issue in this State.
A plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must establish by expert testimony the standard of care and the defendant's failure to conform to it, unless the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGraw v. St. Joseph's Hosp.
... ... 5. " 'It is the general rule that in medical malpractice cases negligence or want ... involved administrative duty to provide escort); Rewis v. Grand Strand General Hospital, 290 S.C. 40, 348 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Ditch v. Waynesboro Hosp.
...ministerial, or routine and, thus, were distinguishable from medical or professional negligence); Rewis v. Grand Strand Gen. Hosp., 290 S.C. 40, 348 S.E.2d 173 (1986) (hospital's negligence in allowing patient to fall out of bed did not require expert testimony); Newhall v. Central Vermont ......
-
Heath v. HealthSouth Medical Center
...bed to the bathroom was not required to present expert testimony regarding the standard of care); Rewis v. Grand Strand Gen. Hosp., 290 S.C. 40, 42, 348 S.E.2d 173, 174 (1986) (holding that "since the matter of a fall is not a technical one outside the comprehension of a layman," "[t]he com......
-
Gordon v. Lancaster
...court must review the evidence and all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Rewis v. Grand Strand Gen. Hosp. , 290 S.C. 40, 41–2, 348 S.E.2d 173, 174 (1986). If more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the motion for nonsuit must be denied......