Roberts v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp. (C. C
Citation | 98 W.Va. 476 |
Decision Date | 17 March 1925 |
Docket Number | C. C. 331. |
Parties | Frantz Roberts v. Ohio Valley General Hospital |
Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
Charities Charitable Hospital Liable to Patients for Injuries Because of Incompetency of Physicians, etc., if It Fails to Use Reasonable Care in Their Selection and Retention.
It is incumbent on a charitable hospital to use reasonable care in the selection and retention of its physicians, nurses, and attendants; and for failure to do so, it is liable for injuries received by its patients due to their incompetency.
(Charities. 11 C. J. § 107.)
Case certified from Circuit Court, Ohio County.
Action by Frantz Roberts against the Ohio Valley General Hospital. After sustaining objection to defendant's special plea and rejecting it, court certified case.
Biding affirmed.
Wdliam B. Casey, for plaintiff. Hubbard & Hubbard, for defendant.
The plaintiff filed a declaration in the circuit court of Ohio county for damages, alleging an injury to her from the negligent and unskillful treatment of one of defendant's nurses, while she, plaintiff, was at defendant's hospital as a paying patient.
The defendant filed a special plea, in the words and figures following:
The court sustained an objection to, and rejected the plea, The ease has been certified here on the joint application of both parties to the suit, who desire a ruling on. the sufficiency of the special plea.
The exact question involved in this case has never been determined by this court, In looking to the decisions of other states, we find widely divergent views. Courts have not only resolved this question differently, but have given variant reasons respectively for the same conclusions. Generally speaking, there are three lines of decisions in this country.
1. A few courts have held a charitable institution equally liable to a paying patient for the negligence of an employe as an institution conducted solely for profit. A leading and wellreasoned case adopting this view is that of Tucker v. Mobile Infirmary Assn., an Alabama case, reported in 68 So. 4.
2. Another line of decisions, quite respectable in authority and number, have exempted charitable institutions from any liability whatsoever for the negligence of its employes. The reasons for this holding are several. In some cases it is held that as contributions are made for the specific purpose of beneficence, the fund so established must be held inviolate for the purposes of the trust, and cannot be diverted to the payment of judgments for torts. Some opinions regard the acceptance by the patient of the benefit of the charity as an implied waiver of any claim for neglect. Other courts have exempted charitable institutions on the theory that the rule of respondeat superior is a hard rule at best, and should not be applied except in cases where the service bestowed by the employe yields a profit to the employer.
Cases illustrating the second line of decisions are Downs v. Harper Hospital, (Mich.) 25 L. R. A. 602; J onsen, admr., v. Infirmary (Me.) 78 Atl. 898, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 141, and Roosen v. Brigham Hospital, 235 Mass. 66, 14 A. L. R, 563, 126 N. E. 392. The holding in the Massachusetts case is as follows:
"A Hospital run as a charity is not answerable in tort to a patient for negligence of its managing officers in selecting incompetent servants and agents."
3. By far the most generally accepted theory, and that which is supported by the great weight of authority throughout the states is that a charitable hospital should not be held liable for the negligence of employes when reasonable care has been used in their selection and retention. These decisions are generally based on public policy. The law in this respect is fairly stated in 11 C. J. 377, par. 108:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sessions v. Thomas D. Dee Memorial Hospital Ass'n
...... Flower Deaconess Home and Hospital , 104 Ohio St. 61,. 135 N.E. 287, 23 A. L. R. 900; Weston's. Adm'x ...463, 238 P. 22, 42. A. L. R. 964; Roberts v. Ohio Valley General. Hospital , 98 W.Va. 476, 127 ... object. Gitzhoffen v. Sisters of Holy Cross. Hosp. Ass'n , 32 Utah 46, 88 P. 691, 695, 8 L. R. A.,. N. S. ......
-
Wilcox v. Idaho Falls Latter Day Saints Hospital, 6484
......Sisters of Charity of. St. Vincent's Hospital , 47 Ohio App. 228, 191 N.E. 791; Wharton v. Warner , 75 Wash. 470, ... Auxilio, etc. , 45 F.2d 331; Roberts v. Ohio Valley. General Hospital , 98 W.Va. 476, 127 S.E. ......
-
President and Dir. of Georgetown College v. Hughes, 7761.
......154, 18 S.E. 46; Carey v. Squire, 1939, 63 Ohio App. 476, 27 N.E.2d 175; Ewing v. Wm. L. Foley, Inc., 1926, ... Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (1937) 266, 270; La.Gen. Stat.Ann. (Dart, 1939) §§ 9850.53, 9850.84 Act La. No. ...Roberts, 1930, 91 Ind.App. 533, 171 N.E. 10; Roberts v. Ohio Valley ......
-
Eads v. Young Women's Christian Assn., 28541.
......210, 229 S.W. 1050; Adams v. University Hosp., 122 Mo. App. 675; Whittaker v. Hosp., 137 Mo. App. 116; ...Wilson, 287 Mo. 210, 229 S.W. 1050; Roberts v. College of Osteopathy & Surgery, 16 S.W. (2d) 625. (c) ...340; Taylor v. Protestant Hospital Assn., 85 Ohio St. 90; Gable v. Sisters of St. Francis, 227 Pa. 254; ...487, 172 Pac. 554; Roberts v. Ohio Valley General Hospital, 98 W. Va. 476, 127 S.E. 318; Bachman v. ......