Suwannee County Hospital Corp. v. Golden
| Decision Date | 12 February 1952 |
| Parties | SUWANNEE COUNTY HOSPITAL CORP. v. GOLDEN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Keen, O'Kelley & Spitz, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Ferguson & Jopling, Lake City, for appellees.
The appellees were successful in their action against the appellant for damages resulting from an injury to Claudia Golden, the wife, when she was severely burned by hot water bottles improperly applied while she was a patient in appellant hospital.
The first question constitutes a challenge of the court's order striking defenses, setting up a part of appellant's charter which we shall presently quote, and averring that the appellant, supported and maintained by ad valorem taxes and receipts from race track funds, together with a 'Hospital Tax,' constituted the hospital district, and the institution itself, an arm of the county which was immune from such damages as were recovered in the circuit court.
The court's order amounted to an adjudication that the pertinent portion of the act was unconstitutional, and also that the character of the organization was not such as to relieve it of liability under the circumstances of this case.
The two phases of the ruling, that is, the natures of the act and the creature of the act, seem to have been blended in counsels' treatment in the briefs.
By Chapter 23547, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1945, a district was created for the purpose of building and maintaining a hospital '* * * for the benefit of the citizens and residents * * *' of Suwannee County, '* * * and the extension, when available, of hospitalization to patients from other and adjoining counties; provided, however, that patients from other counties * * * shall be required to pay the cost of such hospitalization * * *.'
The Legislature was at pains to declare in the act that the hospital was to be 'public,' the corporation 'public,' and the district 'public'; also that the corporation was to be non-profit with net earnings placed in a reserve fund to be used for hospital purposes.
The trustees were empowered to prescribe maximum charges and fees, and to determine who should receive hospitalization free because of inability to pay.
The particular provision brought into focus by this controversy is: 'The said corporation may contract and be contracted with, and may sue and be sued, but said corporation shall not be liable for any negligence of any of its officers, agents or employees, including doctors and surgeons and nurses who may be engaged in work at or about said hospital, and shall not be liable for any tort committed by any officer, agent or employee of said corporation.' (Italics ours.)
Counsel for appellants have directed us to decisions of a federal court and of the Supreme Courts of Ohio and Alabama, which seem to support the position that an institution like Suwannee County Hospital should not be held responsible for damages from tort.
The federal court was dealing with a suit against a home for disabled volunteer soldiers and held that a charitable organization created, owned, and maintained by the government and engaged in its public duties was '* * * exempt from liability to a private action for negligence in the discharge * * *' of those duties. Lyle et al. v. National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers C.C., 170 F. 842, 845.
The Supreme Court of Ohio, in Overholser v. National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, 68 Ohio St. 236, 67 N.E. 487, 489, 62 L.R.A. 936, concluded that the corporation was created for "public and national purposes" and that a suit against it, inasmuch as it was performing only a function of government and accomplishing no other object, was, in fact, a suit against the government. The court then likened the organization to a board of education which could not be made responsible for damages in erecting and maintaining a school building.
This decision brought to counsels' mind our ruling in Bragg v. Board of Public Instruction of Duval County, 160 Fla. 590, 36 So.2d 222, where we, too, held that a Board of Public Instruction was engaged in a public function, and not subject to actions for tort; and to Cleary v. Dade County, 160 Fla. 892, 37 So.2d 248, where we were treating of the acquisition by the county of a hospital in Miami and where it was remarked that the governmental agency was charged under a statute with the care of the sick, aged, and indigent.
But up to this point, we are unaware of any commitment of this court to the proposition that a hospital operated by the public and accepting patients for compensation--this was the case here--may escape payment ment for injury to such patients suffered through negligence.
A case apropos appellant's contention appears in Moore v. Walker County, 236 Ala. 688, 185 So. 175, where it was decided that a county which equipped, maintained, and operated a hospital to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. Bishop Byrne Council Home, Inc., 139
...37 Cal.2d 356, 232 P.2d 241 (1951); Durney v. St. Francis Hospital, Inc., 7 Terry 350, 83 A.2d 753 (Del.1951); Suwannee County Hospital Corp. v. Golden, 56 So.2d 911 (Fla.1952); Bell v. Presbytery of Boise, 91 Idaho 374, 421 P.2d 745 (1966); Neely v. St. Francis Hospital & School of Nursing......
-
West Coast Hospital Ass'n v. Hoare
...had nothing to do with laws, rules or regulations concerning the government of such a hospital. In the cases of Suwannee County Hospital Corp. v. Golden, Fla., 56 So.2d 911, and Holbrook v. City of Sarasota, Fla., 58 So.2d 862, this Court held that a paying patient in a county hospital was ......
-
Lee v. Dunklee
...principally upon the cases of Henderson v. Twin Falls County, 56 Idaho 124, 50 P.2d 597, 101 A.L.R. 1151, and Suwannee County Hospital Corporation v. Golden, Fla., 56 So.2d 911; however, we agree with the disposition the Supreme Court of New Mexico made of those cases in Elliott v. Lea Coun......
-
Holbrook v. City of Sarasota
...tort' makes the giving of the notice a prerequisite to maintaining the suit against the City. In a recent case, Suwannee County Hospital Corp. v. Golden, Fla., 56 So.2d 911, 913, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, we 'It is our view that one who enters a hospital of the type of appellant and ......