St. Barnabas Hosp. v. Minneapolis Int'l Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1897
• Parties: ST. BARNABAS HOSPITAL v MINNEAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL ELECTRIC CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

68 Minn. 254

70 N.W. 1126

ST. BARNABAS HOSPITALvMINNEAPOLIS INTERNATIONAL ELECTRIC CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 12, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The defendant took one of its employés, who had been seriously injured, to plaintiff hospital, and at its request and upon its promise to pay for his care and treatment the plaintiff accepted and received him as a patient for an indefinite period, no length of time being mentioned. Subsequently, and while the patient was yet incapable of being removed or discharged from the hospital without great danger to his life or health, the defendant gave notice that thereafter it would not be responsible for his care or treatment. Held, that defendant had no right to thus terminate its liability; that, under the circumstances, it was an implied condition of the contract that defendant could only terminate it by removing the patient or when he could be dismissed by the plaintiff without serious danger to his life or health. In order to relieve itself from liability for care and treatment, furnished after the notice, on the ground that the patient had means of his own to pay for it, the burden was on defendant to prove that he had means out of which the plaintiff could and should have collected its pay.

Appeal from municipal court of Minneapolis; Andrew Holt, Judge.

Action by the St. Barnabas Hospital against the Minneapolis International Electric Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order refusing a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Harrison & Noyes, for appellant.

George S. Grimes, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action to recover for the care and treatment of one Soutar, furnished and performed at the instance and request of the defendant. The undisputed evidence is that Soutar, having sustained very severe injuries while in its employment, the defendant brought him to plaintiff's hospital, and that plaintiff received and accepted him as a patient upon the faith of defendant's promise to pay for his care and treatment. The evidence on part of the plaintiff was to the effect that nothing was said as to length of time, while defendant's evidence was to the effect that its promise was to pay for his care until further notice. As we view the case, it is immaterial which is correct. Soutar was taken to the hospital on October 22d, and a few days afterwards was, at the request of the defendant, removed from one of the hospital wards to a private room, where he was kept and cared for until the 8th of the following April. The usual price for a private room was $15 a week, while the price for a place in one of the wards was only $7. These accommodations were, respectively, worth these prices. On November 12th defendant gave notice to the plaintiff that it would not continue responsible for any further treatment or care of Soutar after the next day. The contention of the defendant was that it had the absolute right to terminate its promise instanter at any time by giving notice to that effect, and therefore could not, under any circumstances, be...