Tulsa Hospital Ass'n v. Juby
Citation | 175 P. 519,73 Okla. 243,1918 OK 396 |
Decision Date | 23 July 1918 |
Docket Number | 8979. |
Parties | TULSA HOSPITAL ASS'N v. JUBY. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1918.
Syllabus by the Court.
Remarks of the trial judge during the trial of the cause will not constitute reversible error, unless it appears that such remarks are prejudicial to the rights of the complainant.
In order to predicate error on the remarks of the trial judge during the trial, exceptions must be taken to the remarks at the time they are made.
The weight to be given the evidence is a matter left to the jury and a verdict based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed, when the evidence reasonably tends to support the verdict.
A hospital that is conducted for private gain receives patients under an implied obligation that it will exercise ordinary care and attention for their safety, and such degree of care and attention should be in proportion to the physical and mental ailments of the patient, and the question whether or not such requirements have been met presents an issue of fact to be determined by the jury.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
In an action against a private hospital by a patient for damages because of pneumonia, alleged to have been caused by a leaking roof, evidence held to sustain a finding that defendant was negligent.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; W. J. Campbell, Special Judge.
Action by Lottie Juby against the Tulsa Hospital Association. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Dillard Allen & Dillard, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Robinson & Mieher, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This cause of action comes here for hearing from the district court of Tulsa county, Okl. We will refer to the respective parties as they appeared in the trial court. The defendant is a private corporation, conducting a hospital in the town of Tulsa, Okl., for private gain. On or about the 15th day of February, 1915, the plaintiff, Mrs. Lottie Juby, was taken to said hospital for the purpose of being operated on for appendicitis. When she arrived at said hospital, she was a short time thereafter operated on by Dr. A. M. Houser. It was discovered during the operation that the patient was suffering from an affected gall bladder, and that in addition to an affected gall bladder that she had an affected appendix, which was removed during said operation.
After the operation the patient was placed in room 43, under the care of a special nurse. On or about the 20th day of February, 1915, a heavy rain fell, and the roof over the room where the patient was located leaked, to the extent that the blankets on the bed where the patient was lying were wet. There is a conflict in the evidence as to the extent that the bed was wet. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff is to the effect that the bed was wet from the foot to a distance of about two-thirds of the length of the bed, and that all the covers on the bed were wet, and also the gown of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff awoke about 5:30 or 6 o'clock in the morning; that she was awakened by the water falling in her face. The evidence shows that the special nurse was sleeping on a cot in the same room with the plaintiff, and that when plaintiff discovered that her bed and clothes were wet that she attempted to wake the nurse and inform her of her condition; that she had considerable difficulty in awakening the nurse, but that when said nurse was awakened that she secured some dry blankets and changed them for those that were on the bed, but the nightgown in which plaintiff was sleeping and also the sheets on the bed were not changed until 8:30 or 9 o'clock on the same morning. There is a conflict in the testimony with reference to this question. The plaintiff testified that she requested that a change be made in her clothes, and also that the sheets be changed, and that the nurse neglected to make said change until the regular time, which was some two hours after the blankets had been changed. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff shows that she became chilled from said wet bedding, and that her condition grew worse, and that about five days thereafter pneumonia developed; that she suffered for a long time from pneumonia, and incurred large expenses by reason thereof.
The allegations of negligence on which the plaintiff sought to recover are that the defendant was negligent in failing to provide the plaintiff with a suitable and safe place, free from danger, and allowing the roof over the room occupied by said plaintiff to remain in a defective condition, and to permit water from rains to penetrate said roof and fall upon the bed of the plaintiff, and that by reason thereof the negligence of the defendant was a direct and proximate cause of the pneumonia that subsequently developed. It is also alleged that the defendant was negligent in permitting the plaintiff to remain in a wet condition for a period of two hours after the discovery that the roof was leaking. The defendant filed a general denial, and on a trial of the case the plaintiff recovered a judgment in the sum of $3,000. A motion for new trial was overruled, and from the judgment overruling said motion the defendant appeals by petition in error to this court. There are five assignments of error, which are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial