*1 Administrators of the Lydia and Charles H. Brown as Y. BROWN Brown, Appellants, v. ANDERSON COUNTY of William J. Estate ASSOCIATION, Respondents. HOSPITAL 873) (234 S. E. Joe, Jr., Isaac Mitchell, Joe,
Messrs. & Green- Bishop *2 ville, Chambers, Lesesne, Jr., and J. LeVonne and Louis L. Chambers, Stein, C., Becton, Charlotte, & Ferguson N. Appellants, for Kirven, Watkins, Vandiver, Kirven,
H. Grady Esq., Gable, Anderson, Respondemt, & Long for Blatt, Fales, Ronald L. Load- Motley, Esq., Bedinfield, holt, Barnwell, Poole & Carolina Trial Motley, South Committee, Curiae Lawyers Amicus *3 10, 1977. May
Rhodes, Justice. in their representative this action
The brought plaintiffs children of the and nine on of the widow behalf capacity Brown, deceased, damages seeking William Joseph at Anderson a patient while he was death of the deceased Memorial The defendant Hospital.1 asserted several de- fenses, that of charitable and including moved for immunity, summary The circuit judgment. judge defend- granted ant’s motion on the ground the defendant is elee- an is, mosynary corporation therefore, and immune from lia- for claims bility based upon reck- alleged negligence lessness of its servants, or agents, From employees. the order granting summary judgment the re- plaintiffs We appeal. verse and remand. 20, 1974,
On Brown was as a July admitted to patient Anderson Memorial Hospital. plaintiffs alleged upon admission to the the deceased was hospital, strapped into a bed servants, defendant’s agents thereby him rendering completely immobile and While so helpless. restrained, a fire his room. began the fire the During de- ceased received severe burns in his death. resulting The plain- tiffs that the fire and the alleged failure to subsequent pro- tect the deceased from it were a result of proximate negligent acts reckless and omissions on the of various part serv- ants, agents defendant in a employees number of as set forth in the particulars Complant. Petition,
We granted plaintiffs’ filed pursuant Rule Court, of the Rules of this §10 review the earlier decis- ions of this Court the defense of sustaining charitable im- in actions of munity the nature to us presented this appeal. we Additionally, granted permission to interested parties intervene as amici curiae and to file briefs with to the respect doctrine. A number of such briefs were filed with this Court and have received consideration.
This appeal presents but one de- question our requiring cisions : whether defendant, the a not for corporation profit, which has as its the maintenance purpose and of operation 1 Hospital Anderson operated by Memorial County is the Anderson Association, Hospital non-profit eleemosynary corporation, which is a by chartered the State of South Any Carolina in 1906. funds accumu- by lated reason of exceeding revenues expenditures are used for im- to, provements of, operation or for the hospital. the
483 a funds are from dona- and whose derived hospital, private tions, is immune from public agencies paying patients, for reckless- caused the liability injuries by negligence ness of more of its or servants. Stated one or employees another the issue is whether the doctrine of charitable way, is a defense to action. valid the plaintiffs’ decisions that the state Court indicate present of the law in im South Carolina with respect is hold It munity is following: contrary public policy of its a for the negligence charitable institution responsible care, due Lindler v. Columbia Hospi servants selected with tal, 25, servants, E. or for agents, 98 S. C. 81 S. 512 (1914), due care. Ver or officersselected without employees, superior 197, West, million v. Due Woman’s S. C. College of E. The fact that a a charitable patient 88 S. 649 (1916). for a room does not render the and attendance hospital pays liable for to the caused negli hospital injuries patient of its servants. Lindler v. Columbia Hospital, supra. gence is of no im The relation of the to the injured charity person so that it is immaterial whether injured person portance v. invitee of the institution. Vermillion is or an employee West, Due A charitable institu Woman’s College supra. for tion, however, is not from liability trespass exempt lessee. Peden out of its activities nuisance arising E. Nor Furman 155 S. C. 151 S. University, (1930). out of activity extend to a situation where does immunity commercial in charac arises is liability primarily which the with the charitable ter and unconnected wholly purpose Eiserhardt State was organized. which corporation C., Mech. S. C. 111 S. E. Soc. 235 S. Ag. also been from liability Churches have exempted (1959). Charleston, Decker v. 247 S. C. Bishop
for negligence, E. additionally 147 S. (1966), holding not insurance does liability charity procurement where the injured charity create to the liability person from where the Finally, charity otherwise immune liability. tort, defense not may interpose commits an intentional *5 484 75, Caine, coat 261 C. 198 v. S. immunity.
of charitable Jeff E. 258 S. (1973).2 States
Charitable
was
to the United
imported
Massachus
from
Court of
Supreme
England
Judicial
Hos
etts in the case of McDonald v. Massachusetts General
432,
pital, 120 Mass.
21 Am.
:
529
Rep.
(1876)
in this
the first case
. . . was
McDonald case]
“[The
immune from tort liability.
to be
charities
country declaring
trust,
in
held
funds of a
are
charity
It
there held that the
was
The Massachu
will not
courts
permit.
the diversion of which
rule,
Holli
court,
cited
establishing
as authority
setts
769,
Leonard’s,
decided in
142
day
Eng. Reprint
Eng
St.
case had followed dictum by
in
The Holliday
land
1861.
Findlater,
Cottenham, in Duncan v.
7 Eng. Reprint
Lord
1846,
943,
in
In
Chancellor Cottenham
handed down
1839.
The
Heriot’s Hos
dictum in
had uttered similar
Feoffees of
Ross,
However,
1508.
the dictum of
8
pital
Reprint
Eng.
in
Duncan
1866
Docks
(Mersey
case was overruled
Gibbs,
Trustees v.
11
Reprint 1500),
Holliday
Eng.
v. Mayor
case
in
Foreman
Canterbury,
was reversed
1871.
court resurrected
L. R.
Despite repudiation England, country, charitable momentum in this immunity gained was, intervals, and it at or modi- various in complete adopted However, commencing fied in many jurisdictions. versions Island in there began grad- with the State of Rhode doctrine, in whole or in part, ual renunciation 2 foregoing prior are the that “The in stated .Tefcoat in no doubt that the decisions . . . There can be decisions of this Court. Lindler, Vermillion, general expressions to and Lecher contain broad exempt liability. tort from all that charitable institutions the effect However, exemption from complete the broad statement of a rule of cases, and the rule liability unnecessary to a decision in those tort was beyond by our decisions never been extended of charitable has Vermillion, Lindler, Lecher. . . .” in the facts Island, R. I. states. Glavin v. Rhode Hospital, Prosser the demise of Am. 675. writes that Rep. has the doctrine is alive well been such that Maine, New Mex its form three states: only complete Prosser, Torts,
ico, Law and South Carolina. Section *6 ed. (4th 1971). the on en
While
which the
of the
banc
majority
ground
Court in Lindler v. Columbia
rested its de-
Hospital, supra,
cision was that it
to hold a
would be against public policy
charitable institution
for
of its
the
responsible
negligence
care,
servants selected with due
for
this basis
the decision
received little discussion from
This
the
was
majority.
ground
criticized
the dissenters
strongly
by
speaking through Justice
Fraser, who
is
that “It
a
of law as well
argued
principle
morals,
men
that
must be
before
are
just
they
generous.
There is no
or more
than
higher
just principle
that a trust
done,
fund shall
the evil itself has
before it
remedy
attempts
the
evils done
others”.
S.
remedy
by
and determining
be
that this doctrine was
It must
remembered
not established
but, rather,
enactment
of this Court
by opinion
by legislative
Lindler case. It is
that in
observe
interesting
of
Fraser in Lindler the
dissenting opinion
following
Justice
but,
must,
not to
if
“Courts ought
legislate,
they
appears:
their
should be wise
then
and safe.” 98
C. at
legislation
S.
doctrine of charitable
“The law’s not emphasis ordinarily liability, immun- has ity, widened it in wrongdoing. Respondeat superior *7 an and to a extent institutionally, large corporately, organiz- is no ed defense. When it has community. Charity generally been as a trust or has shift- organized corporation, emphasis ed from to The conditions of liability law and of immuntiy. The rule of im- the shift have changed. fact which created trend of of with the general legislative is out munity step losses incurred individ- by in distributing and judicial policy all who of an enterprise among the operation uals through borne them to be wholly benefit it rather than leaving by President Directors those sustain them. . . .” who by of D. 76 U. S. C. Georgetown College Hughes, App. 130 F. 810 (2d) (1942). the law of
The defendant that no argues change this should be made Court by charitable immunity This this reason of stare decisis. We reject argument. is not intended “to effect a ‘petrifying rigidity,’ doctrine and stabili that flows from certainty but to assure the justice 163 N. Y. S. N. Y. Thunig, (2d) ty”. Bing decisis stare Fundamentally, 143 N. E. (1957). 20 Am. of law; of it is a matter judicial policy. is not rule a immu- It does not render Courts (1965). (2d), §184 Jur. rules. of common law table formulations judicial time, however, that hospitals same we recognize At the health care and role in this in the of vital State area play of the sick It is essential injured. the rehabilitation at level that function the highest public good hospitals Therefore, of limitation of the immunity performance. any as insensitiv- defense as to should not be hospitals interpreted on the charitable concerns. ity part legitimate abolition of the in favor of advanced arguments are not of charitable persuasive.
doctrine result in the of the doctrine would Total abrogation interests yet equally important failure to balance competing who of the objects of those persons hospitals We, therefore, an intermediate ground torts. adopt hospitals’ tortious acts of com anyone injured through and hold that servants, of the or or omission agents, employees mission in this State recover may a charitable hospital officers of if the can such hospital, aggrieved party against damages because the hospital’s occurred injuries that the establish disregard plaintiff’s rights. reckless heedlessness is than is one which higher of proof This standard that standard proof required It parallels simple negligence. known (1962), popularly Code under S. C. §46-801 fosters Immunity neglect Automobile Guest Statute. the exercise of liability encourages while and irresponsibility, our common system cornerstone of law This basic due care. immunity. is frustrated total of jurisprudence our applicable only We holding emphasize *8 not this defendant. We do extend including hospitals, of charita or defense modify it so to abrogate as missions, churches, rescue orphanages, as to ble starting adequate an 46-801 serve as dealing with Section The cases necessary proof we set forth interpreting the standard point holdings may in such cases opinion, to the extent in this in a the one at bar. to the facts case such as applied logically be and other institutions
colleges, nature, which are and purpose operation. decisions of this previous inconsistent with set forth herein are overruled. holding in this
We aware State have acted hospitals in reliance the old rule of charitable upon and not have taken themselves may steps protect Therefore, with insurance. we follow the liability adequate states, Carolina, of other such as procedure North and hold that the modification of the doctrine of charitable immunity, as set forth in this to this case opinion, only and to applies those causes of action after arising filing opinion, 10, 1977. See Rabon v. Rowan May Memorial Hospital, Inc., 269 N. C. 152 S. E. (1967). circuit
We reverse the Order sum- judge granting defendant on the to the that it is an mary ground judgment thus entitled tO' from eleemosynary corporation, suit, remand the case for further and consistent proceedings with this opinion.
Reversed Remanded. J.,C.
Lewis, A. concur. J., Littlejohn, JJ., Gregory, Ñess and dissent.
Ness, (dissenting). Justice of the majority I concur in that which opinion portion the doctrine charitable immunity, minimumly qualifies however, I think the is sufficient do not change suggested doctrine, I I abolish dissent. would as hospitals, in its entirety.
This in the United States doctrine was accepted after been The first court in this England. had repudiated doctrine was Rhode Island. See Glavin country reject Island, v. Rhode 12 R. I. 34 Am. Rep. (1879). fact, In in the stated the doctrine in majority opinion, its states, form has been in all but three complete repudiated Maine, Prosser, New Mexico South Carolina. Law Torts, Section 133 Ed. (4th 1971).
489 been soundly The doctrine has and criticized universally archaic, irrational unreasonable. It to tends foster the institution negligence protects well able afford the financial payment damages, placing on burden the one is least bear it. who able to The seminal charitable in decision South Caro- lina was Lindler1 and the rested court there sharply divided its on holding public This was criti- policy grounds. strongly cized dissenters who argued: morals,
“It is
of law
that men must
a
as well as
principle
be
before
is no
more
There
or
just
they
generous.
higher
a trust
evil
than that
fund shall
just principle
remedy
done,
has
itself
before it
done
attempts
remedy
evils
35,
At
others.”
S. E.
81
at
515.
page
page
that the
an
This
has recognized
opinions
appel-
Court
as the
adminis-
court should remain as constant
proper
late
an
will
enlightened
per-
tration of
under
justice
government
Timmerman,
35,
234
106 S.
Dean v.
C.
E.
mit.
S.
(2d)
the issue
before us whether the
Thus
squarely
665 (1969).
are valid today.
public policy underpinnings
doctrine
The doctrine of charitable
have been
immunity may
justi-
at
time.
we
in
under
facts
live
a
existing
Today
fied
a new
world with
set of facts.
changing
is not the
endeavors
public
policy
Discouraging
doctrine,
State, however,
of the
as to
the abrogation
charities
fade
will
away.
does not mean
hospitals,
chaos were
inevitably
follow the
“If havoc
financial
doctrine, as the advocates for its
abrogation
insist,
have become
certainly
would
retention
this
apparent
is no
where that doctrine
defense.”
longer
States
486, 503,
417 Pa.
Hospital,
208
Pennsylvania
Flagiello
Accord,
v. Rowan
Rabon
201.
Memorial
193 at
A. (2d)
E.
485 (1967).
269 N. C.
S.
Hospital,
(1914).
98 S.
Liability
stated
exception.
Flaqiello
Pennsylvania Hospital, supra,
494,
v.
“A recover person may if he is damages injured, hotel, theater, store, rink, result of in a negligence, skating train or he cannot he is bowling alley, yet recover if ship, hurt in the where accidents place are considered most un- to occur—in a likely one hospital, where to be cured goes of an already and not to existing infirmity be saddled with additional woe and torment. This is indeed the of paradox reason, paradoxes. all, It no of has and least logic, justice that, And still more is the support it. paradoxical argument by to the victim of a own refusing recovery hospital’s negli- one is gence, somehow serving charity!”
Here the application immunity favors hos- large which derives pital substantial revenue from paying patients over a at the hands of paying patient allegedly injured those with care. charged patient
I conclude that the interst is public ill served continu- ation of the exemption.
“Neither the of encouragement charity philanthropy nor the doctrine of on the of ground public policy can the fact that dispel interest and primary welfare of that one public should not suffer an in- requires person in merely his or her life or limb without recompense jury should all of the of a charitable hospital order that earnings for others.” charity be to the purpose providing devoted 939, Holmes, Miss. Baptist Hospital Mississippi in Rabon 156. with Cited approval So. (2d) E. Memorial 269 N. C. 152 S. Hospital, Rowan 485, 493 (1967). is insurance. of funds for hospitals source
The primary of its more than charges paid It is estimated 70% insurance makes the Another benefits. type insurance insurance avail- Liability more unrealistic. doctrine even of this cost would not rates. effect at reasonable able fact, could be passed funds of the hospital, deplete anticipation costs. Some hospitals, on as patient now this cloak of immunity, not have will they when day insurance. carry does not suggest as to hospitals immunty Abolition I of charities. concerns to legitimate that I am insensitive *11 in- as a business functions that if a hospital believe firmly patients from paying by receiving payments stitution establishment also offers, a business must be it what its meeting obligations. its
I abolish the doctrine would the case for further remand toas entirety, hospitals, with this opinion. consistent proceedings concurs. J., Gregory, Charleston, Bishop 247 S. C. in Decker charity (1966) was insured.
S. E.