Roberts v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp.

Citation127 S.E. 318
Decision Date17 March 1925
Docket Number(C. C. No. 331.)
PartiesROBERTS. v. OHIO VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL.
CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia

(C. C. No. 331.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

March 17, 1925.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Case Certified from Circuit Court, Ohio County.

Action by Frantz Roberts against the Ohio Valley General Hospital. After sustainingobjection to defendant's special plea and rejecting it, court certified case. Ruling affirmed.

William B. Casey, of Wheeling, for plaintiff.

Hubbard & Hubbard, of Wheeling, for defendant.

HATCHER, J. 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 defendant says that it is incorporated as a nonstock association under chapter 55 of the Code of West Virginia for the purpose of conducting a hospital without profit to its members or to other persons; that by reason of its charitable work it has at all times operated its hospital at a loss, and that its deficits are from time to time made up by charitable donations of money and materials, by the income of charitable bequests and by allowances from the county of Ohio and the state of West Virginia. And the defendant, while not admitting that it has been guilty of negligence as charged in the declaration, says that it has no property or funds out of which a judgment in this action could be paid excepting the funds which are administered as a charitable trust in the care of sick and injured persons and in the training of nurses and physicians. And this the defendant is ready to verify."

The court sustained an objection to, and rejected the plea. The case 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 conclusion. 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 employee as an institution conducted solely for profit. A leading and well-reasoned case adopting this view is that of Tucker v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 191 Ala. 572, 68 So. 4, L. R. A. 1915D, 1167.

2. Another line of decisions, quite respectable in authority and number, have exempted charitable institutions from any liability whatsoever for the negligence of its employees. 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 employee yields a profit to the employer. Cases illustrating this second line of decisions are Downes v. Harper Hospital, 101 Mich. 555, 60 N. W. 42, 25 L. R. A. 602, 45 Am. St. Rep. 427; Jansen, Adm'r, v. Infirmary, 107 Me. 408, 78 A. 898, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 141; and Roosen v. Brigham Hospital, 235 Mass. 66, 126 N. E. 392, 14 A. L. R. 563. 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 employees 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:

"Hospitals.—Except in some jurisdictions, it is a rule that those who furnish hospital accommodations and medical attendance, not for the purpose of making profit thereby, but out of charity, or in the course of the administration of a charitable enterprise, are not liable for the negligent or other tortious acts of the physicians, nurses,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Sessions v. Thomas D. Dee Memorial Hospital Ass'n
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1938
    ... ... Flower Deaconess Home and Hospital , 104 Ohio St. 61, ... 135 N.E. 287, 23 A. L. R. 900; Weston's ... 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
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1938
    ... ... St. Vincent's Hospital , 47 Ohio App. 228, 191 N.E ... 791; Wharton v. Warner , 75 Wash ... Auxilio, etc. , 45 F.2d 331; Roberts v. Ohio Valley ... General Hospital , 98 W.Va. 476, 127 ... ...
  • President and Dir. of Georgetown College v. Hughes
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 30, 1942
    ...43 infra. 29 Old Folks' & Orphan Children's Home v. Roberts, 1930, 91 Ind.App. 533, 171 N.E. 10; Roberts v. Ohio Valley General Hospital, 1925, 98 W.Va. 476, 127 S.E. 318, 42 A.L.R. 968; cf. Carver Chiropractic College v. Armstrong, 1924, 103 Okl. 123, 229 P. 641, 30 See, e. g., Mulliner v.......
  • Eads v. Young Women's Christian Assn., 28541.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1930
    ...88 S.E. 649; Baylor University v. Boyd, 18 S.W. (2d) 700; Susman v. Y.M.C.A., 101 Wash. 487, 172 Pac. 554; Roberts v. Ohio Valley General Hospital, 98 W. Va. 476, 127 S.E. 318; Bachman v. Y.W.C.A., 179 Wis. 178, 191 N.W. 751, 30 A.L.R. 448; Bishop Randall Hospital v. Hartley, 24 Wyo. 408, 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT