Rose v. Raleigh Fitkin-paul Morgan Mem'l Hosp.-ann May Found..

• Decision Date: 29 January 1948
• Docket Number: No. 41.,41.
• Citation: 57 A.2d 29,136 N.J.L. 553
• Parties: ROSE v. RALEIGH FITKIN-PAUL MORGAN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-ANN MAY FOUNDATION.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

136 N.J.L. 553

57 A.2d 29

ROSE

v.RALEIGH FITKIN-PAUL MORGAN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL-ANN MAY FOUNDATION.

No. 41.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 29, 1948.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Ida C. Rose against the Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Morgan Memorial Hospital-Ann May Foundation, to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff in fall due to alleged negligence of an employee of the defendant. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 53 A.2d 178, 25 N.J.Misc. 311, in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Parsons, Labrecque, Canzona & Combs, of Red Bank (Theodore D. Parsons, of Red Bank, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Durand, Ivins & Carton, of Asbury Park (J. Victor Carton, of Asbury Park of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

BURLING, Justice.

This is an action at law sounding in tort, the gravamen of which is the alleged actionable negligence of the defendant-appellant.

The case involved the right of a private nurse, caring for a patient at the Fitkin Hospital, to recover damages from the hospital for injuries sustained by her as the result of a fall due to the alleged negligence of an employee of the defendant-appellant. It was tried before Circuit Court Judge Robert V. Kinkead, without a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's (respondent's) case, defendant-appellant moved for a nonsuit upon the ground that the plaintiff was the recipient of the benefactions of the appellant hospital or a beneficiary of the appellant hospital and that a charitable institution was not liable as such for the negligence of its servants. This motion was denied. The appellant hospital offered no testimony. The appellant having elected to present no evidence, a motion was thereupon made for a directed verdict of no cause for action upon the same grounds. This motion was denied. Thereupon the Court found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $2500.

The only grounds of appeal filed are the failure of the trial judge to grant a motion to non-suit and at the close of the reception of evidence to grant a motion for a directed verdict of no cause for action.

The question of liability of a charitable institution to respond in damages for negligence of its servants has been many times before the Courts. Conflict exists among the Courts of the several states concerning such liability. The subject has been the cause of prolific judicial opinion. It is one upon which there has been and is not only a conflict of decisions among the Courts, but also a remarkable diversity of opinion among the Courts which agree in their ultimate decision as to the reason or ground for so deciding. Andrews v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Des Moines, 1939, 226 Iowa 374; 284 N.W. 186; President and Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes, 1942, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 123; 130 F.2d 810; Gregory v. Salem General Hospital, 1944, 175 Ore. 464, 153 P.2d 837.

There are two rules: One is known as the ‘absolute or unqualified’ immunity rule and the other is known as the ‘qualified’ immunity rule. Various reasons are given by the Courts in support of the respective rules applied by them. Among those reasons are ‘public policy,’ ‘trust fund theory,’ ‘waiver theory,’ ‘respondeat superior theory.’ The subject is discussed in 10 Fletcher's Cyc. Corp. (Perm.Ed.), and among others in the following cases: Roosen v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, 235 Mass. 66, 126 N.E. 392, 14 A.L.R. 563; Vermillon v. Women's Callege of Due West, 1916, 104 S.C. 197, 88 S.E. 649; Schumacher v. Evangelical Deaconess Soc. of Wisconsin, 218 Wis. 169, 260 N.W. 476.'

A chronological review of the pertinent New Jersey cases is found in the opinion in the case of Fair v. Atlantic City Hospital, Atlantic County Circuit Court, 1946, 50 A.2d 376, 25 N.J.Misc. 65 and in the opinion of the Court below 53 A.2d 178, 25 N.J.Misc. 311. They are: D'Amato v. Orange Memorial Hospital, Court of Err. and App., 1925, 101 N.J.L. 61, 127 A. 340. Boeckel v. Orange Memorial Hospital, Supreme Court, 1932, 108 N.J.L. 453, 158 A. 832; affirmed in Court of Errors and Appeals 1933, 110 N.J.L. 509, 166 A. 146. Simmons v. Wiley M. E. Church, Court of Err. and App., 1933, 112 N.J.L. 129, 170 A. 237. Kolb v. Monmouth Memorial Hospital, Court of Err. and App., 1935, 116 N.J.L. 118, 182 A. 822. Bianchi v. South Park Presbyterian Church, Court of Err. and App., 1939, 123 N.J.L. 325, 8 A.2d 567, 124 A.L.R. 808.

In the Kolb case [116 N.J.L. 118, 182 A. 823], the New Jersey rule, the qualified immunity rule, is summarized and defined as follows:

‘In our state we have adopted and followed what we believe to be the majority view; i.e., the public policy theory. Thus we deny the right of recovery on the part of those who have a valid claim against a charitable institution, based on actionable negligence, but who are either the recipients of the benefactions, or the beneficiaries of the charitable institution sought to be held liable; but we permit the right of recovery against...