England v. Hospital of Good Samaritan

California Court of Appeal Oct 1, 1936 No. Civ. 11036Published

Before: Wood

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A hospital may be held liable for the negligence of its employees if it is operated for profit or if the patient had no knowledge of its charitable status, and the issue of whether the hospital exercised due care in selecting its employees must be submitted to the jury.

Issues

Whether a hospital's charitable status exempts it from liability for employee negligence when it is operated for profit.
Whether a patient's lack of knowledge regarding a hospital's charitable status affects the hospital's immunity from liability.
Whether the evidence regarding the hospital's failure to investigate a nurse's qualifications required submission to the jury.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence was sufficient to call for the submission to the jury, of the question whether defendant had used due care in employing the nurse who attended plaintiff.”

[641]

WOOD, J.

Plaintiff sought a judgment against defendant for damages for injuries suffered on October 16, 1935, while he was a patient in the hospital operated by defendant. It is claimed that a nurse employed by defendant to care for plaintiff negligently placed hot water bottles against plaintiff’s leg in such manner as to cause third degree burns. When plaintiff finished the presentation of evidence the trial court upon motion of defendant directed the jury to return a verdict in defendant’s favor. From the resulting judgment plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.

By presenting a motion for a directed verdict defendant concedes as true the evidence in behalf of plaintiff with all fair and reasonable inferences to be deduced therefrom.

(Butler-Veitch, Inc.,

Barnard,

77 Cal. App. 709 [247 Pac. 597].) Considering plaintiff’s evidence in the light of this rule the following facts may be considered as established: Plaintiff applied for admission to defendant’s hospital and was received as a patient paying the customary rate, the amount quoted by defendant’s cashier. He was injured through the negligence of a nurse assigned to care for him by defendant. The articles of incorporation of defendant provide that the hospital “shall be conducted under the auspices of the Protestant Episcopal Church ...” The by-laws, as amended June 20, 1921, provide that “the corporation is organized not for profit, but for the purpose of establishing and maintaining an institution under Christian influence, for the training of nurses, and for the care of the sick, including those who are unable to pay Avholly or in part for medical or surgical aid”. Defendant’s hospital is one of the larger hospitals of the city of Los Angeles. Defendant operated for profit a number of departments to which the public had access, such as pharmacy, lunch-counter and soda fountain, including magazines and toilet articles. In 1935, the year in which plaintiff was injured, defendant realized a profit of $62,767 from operations. Defendant’s earned surplus on January 1, 1931, was $142,720. Continuous operations were carried on thereafter and on December 31, 1935, the earned surplus was $65,464. During 1935 defendant cared for 7,672 patients. Of this number 191 were free patients and most of these were physicians, nurses or clergymen, or members of their families. Of

England v. Hospital of Good Samaritan

AI Brief

WOOD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief