Young v. College of Physicians & Surgeons of Baltimore City

• Decision Date: 18 June 1895
• Citation: 32 A. 177,81 Md. 358
• Parties: YOUNG v. COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS OF BALTIMORE CITY ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

32 A. 177

81 Md. 358

YOUNG v. COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS OF BALTIMORE CITY ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 18, 1895

Appeal from court of common pleas.

Action by Barbara Young against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Baltimore City and others. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before ROBINSON, C.J., and BRYAN, BOYD, McSHERRY, BRISCOE FOWLER, and ROBERTS, JJ.

Wm. R Edwards, A. H. Mettee, and R. B. Tippett & Bro., for appellant.

Richard M. Venable, E. G. Baetjer, E. N. Rich, and Wm. S. Bryan, Jr. for appellees.

ROBERTS J.

The plaintiff below (who is now appellant) brought suit against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Baltimore City, Dr Nathaniel G. Keirle, and Dr. Edwin Geer. In her declaration she averred that the body of her deceased husband was wrongfully and unlawfully taken in charge by the defendants, and cut and mutilated and used as a subject for the students of the defendant college, without warrant in law; and that the defendants wrongfully and unlawfully detained the dead body from burial, when demanded for that purpose by the plaintiff; and that the cutting and mutilation of the body was done secretly and clandestinely, in order to afford instruction to the students of the college, and without the consent of plaintiff, or any one acting for her. The damage alleged to have been caused by these acts was great mental excitement and distress and bodily suffering on the part of the plaintiff. Demurrers by each of the defendants presented to the court below the question whether the facts alleged entitled the plaintiff to a cause of action. The court overruled the demurrers, and the case was tried before a jury. The verdict and judgment were in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.

Of course, even if errors were committed by the court in the course of the trial, we could not reverse the judgment, if it were manifest to us that the declaration showed no right of recovery on the part of the plaintiff. We shall not, however further advert to this matter at present. But, inasmuch as the acts laid to the charge of the defendants impute grave moral delinquency, it seems to us just that we should, in the first instance, carefully examine the grounds on which these accusations are made. The deceased, George W. Young, while engaged in coupling cars on the Northern Central Railroad, sustained a very severe injury. His right leg was mashed below the knee, and the injured portion almost severed from his body, retaining its connection with it only by a few threads of tissue. The wounded man was a strong, stout man, of good nerve, and able to work. His widow testified that he never lost any time from his work, and one of his fellow laborers testified that he had worked with him five years, and that he lost no time. He was sent to the City Hospital in Baltimore, where he died the next day. The College of Physicians and Surgeons supplies the medical and surgical service to the City Hospital, and the patient was under the care of a resident physician, who was appointed by the college. After his death a post mortem examination was ordered by Dr. Geer, one of the defendants, and was conducted by Dr. Keirle, another of the defendants. The post mortem was made in a room belonging to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, where such examinations are usually made; and the two physicians just named are connected with the college, Dr. Keirle being a member of the faculty. The post mortem was without the consent of the plaintiff, the widow of the deceased, or of any member of his family. Evidence was offered on the part of the plaintiff for the purpose of showing that the body was wantonly cut, mutilated, and disfigured, and the feelings of the relatives of the deceased inhumanly outraged. On the part of the defendants it was shown that Dr. Geer was one of the coroners of the city of Baltimore, and that Dr. Keirle was the medical examiner appointed by the board of health; also that the post mortem was ordered by Dr. Geer, as coroner, and performed in obedience to his orders by Dr. Keirle. Dr. Geer testified that he ordered the autopsy because he wished to know the cause of death; that it had been reported to him that the man's leg had been cut off by the train, and that he had died within 36 hours after he was brought to the hospital, and that he did not think that the loss of the leg in this way sufficiently accounted for the death; and that he could not give the death certificate without having a post mortem. Dr. Keirle testified that he did not think that in the majority of cases persons in ordinary health, when the leg was crushed below the knee, would die from shock. Dr. Welsh testified that if a healthy man should have his leg crushed off, he would not think it a sufficient cause to explain the death, and in such case, if his official duty required him to give a death certificate, he would make every effort to obtain a post mortem; and that it was so unusual for a death to occur from accident under the conditions surrounding the deceased that other explanations were more probable. Dr. Michael testified that when a man's leg is cut off below the knee, and he dies within 36 hours after the injury, the accident would not be an entirely satisfactory explanation of the death, if the man was ordinarily healthy and muscular; and, if he was required to determine definitely the cause of death in such a case, he would not consider that he had done his duty without having an autopsy. ...