Stewart v. Cal. Med. Missionary & Benevolent Ass'n

California Supreme Court Jun 19, 1918 No. Sac. No. 2430Published

Before: Wilbur

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A hospital operated by a nonprofit corporation is liable for the negligence of its employees when the institution is conducted as a business for profit rather than as a public charity.

Issues

Whether a nonprofit corporation is exempt from liability for the negligence of its employees when operating a hospital for profit.
Whether the character of an institution as a charity is determined solely by its articles of incorporation or by the manner in which it conducts its business.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The character of the institution is to be determined not alone by the powers of the corporation as defined in its charter, but also by the manner of conducting the hospital.”

“Its finding that the hospital was in fact operated for profit is supported by the evidence, and we see no good reason for exempting the defendant from the liability incurred by other hospitals conducted for profit.”

Synopsis

Hospitals—Negligence — Injury to Hospital Patient—Charitable Corporation — Articles of Incorporation not Conclusive.— Where, in an action against a hospital corporation for damages suffered by a patient through the negligence of an employee, the defendant claims exemption from liability on the ground that it is a charitable corporation, the character of the corporation is to be determined not alone by its powers as defined in its charter, but also by the method of transacting business of the hospital.

Id.—Hospital Operated for Profit—Finding Supported by Evidence —Liability.—Where the evidence, in an action against a hospital corporation for injuries sustained by a patient through negligence of a servant, showed that the hospital business of the defendant corporation was conducted in the name of the St. Helena Sanitarium, that there was nothing to indicate that the sanitarium was conducted by the defendant, or that any property was ever conveyed to the defendant for charitable purposes, and the evidence showed, further, that the injured plaintiff paid the full price for her room and operation and treatment and was not the recipient of any charity, and that the defendant had never treated any patients without adequate consideration, the finding of the court that the hospital was in fact operated for profit was supported by the evidence, even though the general purposes of the corporation were charitable.

Id.—Nonexemption for Liability.—Where the evidence in such case shows and the court finds that the hospital was operated for profit, there is no good reason for exempting the corporation operating such hospital from the liability incurred by other hospitals operated for profit.

WILBUR, J. The defendant appeals from two judgments, consolidated by stipulation for purposes of appeal, rendered against it for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, by reason of personal injuries received by Lola A. Stewart, the wife, hereafter referred to as the plaintiff, caused by the negligence of a nurse in the St. Helena Hospital, operated by the defendant, a nonprofit corporation. Trial was had before the court without a jury. On July 6, 1911, while still unconscious from the anesthetic administered during an operation, plaintiff was burned by a hot-water bag, placed in her bed for the purpose of warming it. The court found that the nurse was negligent in failing to remove the hot-water bag from the bed before placing the plaintiff therein, and also found that the defendant was negligent in not providing covers for the hot-water bags for use by the nurses. The court found that the nurse was competent. Defendant claims that under the circumstances found it is not liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, for the reason that it is a charitable corporation.

The defendant corporation was. organized June 10, 1898, and took over the St. Helena Sanitarium, which was founded in 1878. The court found that the defendant had never received any patients for prices less than those ordinarily charged by similar institutions conducted in this state for ■profit, and that no charity patients would be received or had been received or treated except by previous arrangement. It found that the defendant carried on the business in question under the name of the St. Helena Sanitarium, and that all business thereof was transacted in the name of said sanitarium ; that there was nothing to indicate to a person apply[420]ing for treatment that the sanitarium was conducted by the defendant; it was not shown that any property was ever conveyed, transferred in trust, or donated to the defendant for charitable purposes; that plaintiff did not know or believe that the defendant owned the sanitarium in question, or that it was carried on or run as a charitable institution, but that plaintiff believed that she was dealing with the St. Helena Sanitarium, and in all her dealings she had no knowledge that it was or claimed to be a charitable institution, and that she paid the full price for the operation and all treatment and for the room furnished to her, and was not the recipient of any charity. The court also found with reference to the powers and purposes of the corporation and drew legal conclusions therefrom, but as the articles of incorporation and the by-laws are before this court, we will deal with them rather than with the specific findings of the trial court with reference thereto. The articles of incorporation authorize the defendant “to found hospitals or charitable asylums for the care and relief of indigent and other sick or infirm persons, at which institutions may be received also patients and patrons who are able to and do pay for the benefits there received, and which institutions shall devote the funds and property acquired and received by them from time to time from all sources, exclusively to maintaining themselves, improving their conditions and facilities, extending their benefits and usefulness and facilities, and promoting their purpose by such sanitary, dietetic, hygienic, philanthropic, dress, and temperance reforms and éfforts as are germane or auxiliary thereto, and to oppose the use of tobacco, tea, coffee, and other narcotics, as well as of alcoholic liquors, disseminate the principles of social purity, find homes for homeless children and outcast men and women, and care for the aged and infirm; train and send out missionary physicians and missionary nurses, to engage in the promulgation of the principles of hygiene, temperance reform, and Christian philanthropy, and enter upon various lines of work for the relief and betterment of the ignorant, unfortunate, degraded, and suffering, both rich and poor, without distinction to race or creed, and to manufacture and sell hygienic goods and sanitary products, and to promote the objects of said institutions by means of classes, lectures, publications, and other appropriate methods, all of which work and acts shall be done without pecuniary

Stewart v. Cal. Med. Missionary & Benevolent Ass'n

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief