Vanderboget v. Campbell Mill Co.

• Citation: 144 P. 905,82 Wash. 602
• Decision Date: 15 December 1914
• Docket Number: 12200.
• Parties: VANDERBOGET v. CAMPBELL MILL CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington

144 P. 905

82 Wash. 602

VANDERBOGET v. CAMPBELL MILL CO.

No. 12200.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 15, 1914

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Kenneth Mackintosh, Judge.

Action by C. L. Vanderboget against the Campbell Mill Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions to dismiss.

W. H Beatty and R. E. Thompson, Jr., both of Seattle, for appellant.

McClure & McClure, of Seattle, for respondent.

GOSE J.

The plaintiff, a physician and surgeon, brought this action to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by himself and by another surgeon and a nurse whose claims had been assigned to him. The services were rendered in attending one Ray Harney, an injured employé of the defendant, who died three days after he met his injury. The plaintiff recovered in the court below. The defendant has appealed.

The facts are few and simple. After Harney was injured, the appellant's superintendent directed one Murphy to take him to Providence Hospital in the city of Seattle. He did so. A Mr. Reynolds, an uncle of the injured man, met Murphy at the ferry in Seattle and accompanied the two to the hospital. The appellant's superintendent, at the instance of the injured man, had telephoned the uncle to meet his nephew. When they arrived at the hospital Dr. Osborne, who was employed by the National Hospital Association to treat the appellant's employés, was there. He proceeded to examine the wounded man, but was shortly informed by Reynolds that his services would not be required; that the respondent would have charge of the case. He told Reynolds that he was paid by the hospital association to treat the case, and that he was ready to do so. Reynolds, who was not satisfied with Dr Osborne, employed the respondent, who in turn, with Reynolds' consent, employed Dr. Sharples and the nurse. Reynolds testified that he told Murphy that he was not satisfied with Dr. Osborne, and that he wanted the respondent, who was his family physician, to attend his nephew; that Murphy said, 'That is all right; go ahead;' and that he then called the respondent. He said that he did not know Dr. Osborne; that he had not met him prior to that time. He further said that after the young man died, he told Murphy over the telephone that there were physicians' and nurse's charges, and that Murphy answered, 'We will see that all settled.' Murphy testified that he told Reynolds that appellant would not pay for the services of a physician. He further said that he was employed by the appellant as a lumber salesman only, that his only directions were to take the injured man to the hospital, and that he was not directed to arrange for medical attention. The appellant's superintendent testified that he directed Murphy to take the boy to the hospital, and that he did not direct him to employ a physician. There is no testimony to the contrary. The superintendent further said that the appellant 'had an arrangement with the hospital association under which $1 per month was deducted from the wages of each man who worked at the mill, on the understanding that the deduction entitled him to medical attendance by the hospital association'; that he made arrangements with the hospital association for the treatment of Harney, and directed it to have its doctor there. The appellant's place of business was on Lake Summanish, and had telephonic communication with Seattle. The physicians and the nurse each testified that they had no conversation with any representative of the appellant.

Assuming that Reynolds correctly related his conversation with Murphy the appellant is not liable. It had arranged in advance for medical and hospital care for Harney, in obedience to its contract with him. It exacted and withheld $1 per month from the wages of each employé and paid it to the hospital association. This entitled the employé to medical attendance at the hospital. The arrangement had the implied assent of Harney. Murphy was a subordinate employé, and under the circumstances had no authority to obligate the appellant to pay for medical and surgical assistance....