Sandwell v. Elliott Hosp.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 3277.,3277. |
| Citation | 24 A.2d 273 |
| Parties | SANDWELL v. ELLIOTT HOSPITAL. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Johnston, Judge.
Action on the case by Annie L. Sandwell against Elliott Hospital for injuries. Jury returned verdict for plaintiff. To review the denial of its motions for nonsuit and for a directed verdict, and from a portion of the charge to the jury, defendant excepted.
Judgment for defendant.
Action on the case, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff because of a fall upon the ice in the premises of the defendant on February 15, 1939. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff.
The defendant excepted to the denial of its motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict, also to a portion of the charge to the jury that the defendant had the duty of affirmative care with reference to the condition of the premises. Transferred by Johnston, J.
Sheehan & Phinney, of Manchester (Arthur A. Greene, Jr., of North Conway, orally), for plaintiff.
Thorp & Branch, of Manchester (Fred'k W. Branch, of Manchester, orally), for defendant.
The defendant does not deny that a charitable institution may in some instances become liable to pay damages for its negligence. Its liability in this case depends, however, upon whether there was a breach of any duty of care that it owed the plaintiff. The existence of such a duty, and its extent, depend upon the nature of the relationship between the parties. Tullgren v. Amoskeag Mfg. Company, 82 N.H. 268, 270, 133 A. 4, 46 A.L.R. 380; Frear v. Manchester, etc., Company, 83 N.H. 64, 67, 139 A. 86, 61 A.L.R. 1280.
The relationship, in this instance, arose from certain facts that are beyond dispute. The plaintiff's husband was a patient in the hospital, and he was near death. The plaintiff came upon the defendant's premises in order to visit him. The only access to the hospital from the street was by a driveway that was a glare of ice, from which the last sanding had been washed by rain several hours earlier, as was well known to the defendant's superintendent. There was no separate foot-walk.
The plaintiff entered in the evening from a street that was well sanded. Before entering she observed that the driveway was "a perfect sheet of ice", and unsanded. She proceeded carefully, but fell and was injured when she attempted to step aside to avoid being hit by an outgoing automobile.
The relationship of a patient's visitor to a hospital has usually been described as that of an "invitee" or a "business visitor", without reference to whether the entrant is a pure caller, or comes to help the patient to enter or leave the hospital. Alabama, etc., Hospital Board v. Carter, 226 Ala. 109, 145 So. 443; Cohen v. General Hospital Society, 113 Conn. 188, 154 A. 435; Greenfield v. Hospital Association, 258 App.Div. 352, 16 N.Y.S.2d 729; Hospital of St. Vincent of Paul v. Thompson, 116 Va. 101, 81 S.E. 13, 51 L.R.A.,N.S., 1025. The defendant accordingly inclined to that view, and presented the case as if the plaintiff were a "business visitor".
We are unable to follow that theory fully. The "business visitor" or "invitee" relationship depends upon the mutual benefit of the visit to the entrant and the possessor of the premises. Hobbs v. George W. Blanchard & Sons Company, 74 N.H. 116, 119, 65 A. 382, 124 Am.St.Rep. 944; Castonguay v. Acme, etc., Company, 83 N. H. 1, 3, 136 A. 702. If there would have been any benefit or advantage to the defendant in the plaintiff's intended visit to her husband, if it would have had even the slightest tendency to forward the business or promote the interests of the defendant, the benefit or the tendency would have been purely incidental. Those who enter a hospital merely to make a call upon a patient are of course suffered by the hospital to be there,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ouellette v. Blanchard
... ... (1941), holding that a business invitee who asked to use the toilet became a licensee and Sandwell v. Elliott Hospital, 92 N.H. 41, 24 A.2d 273 (1972), placing visitors to the hospital sick in the ... ...
-
Voeltzke v. Kenosha Memorial Hospital, Inc.
...Ball v. Madison (1957), 1 Wis.2d 62, 82 N.W.2d 894.2 See Wis. J I--Civil, Part II, 8010, 8011, 8015 and 8020.3 See Sandwell v. Elliott Hospital (1942), 92 N.H. 41, 24 A.2d 273. ...
-
Mississippi Baptist Hospital v. Holmes
...Ass'n, 105 Colo. 259, 96 P.2d 835, 133 A.L.R. 819; England v. Hospital of the Good Samaritan, 14 Cal.2d 791, 97 P.2d 813; Sandwell v. Elliott, 92 N.H. 41, 24 A.2d 273; Gable v. Salvation Army, 186 Okl. 687, 100 P.2d 244; Dillon v. Rockaway Beach Hospital & Dispensary, 284 N.Y. 176, 30 N.E.2......
-
Menard v. Cashman.
...430, 31 N.E. 128, 32 Am.St.Rep. 463), and of the existence of a business interest on the part of the defendant. See Sandwell v. Elliott Hospital, 92 N.H. 41, 24 A.2d 273. As the Restatement of Torts indicates, the defendant had a ‘business interest in the use of these facilities by any pers......