*1 had a and that they paid out than more they received had buy- institution “revert profit realized it would been facilities expand the and to accommodations ing more meaning evidence, within the hospital”. Under my opinion, should hospital, authorities, the defendant liabil- exempt from be held be the torts pay patients, including ity to its general nature stated, test is the true As its servants. for the maintained whether it is institution and or cost profit service, that and not the extent or for beneficiary received patient has the benefit availing privileges. the evidence himself Inasmuch as average maintaining indicates that the cost of day day, $4 doubtful whether the rate $7.56 a But, plaintiff “profit” found trial court. entailed indicated, if, even if it did the fact would be immaterial merely objective “profit” served to foster the charitable being general the institution—its nature of service the afflicted rather than the accumulation and distribution of profits.
Rehearing Shenk, J., denied. rehearing. voted for a December 28, A. No. 17184. Bank.
[L. 1939.] etc., Respondent, Administrator, ENGLAND, Special E.A. (a Corpora- THE SAMARITAN OF GOOD HOSPITAL Appellant. tion),
Gibson, Crutcher, Philip Sterry, C. Ira C. Powers Dunn & Sturdy Appellant. for Frederic Quayle Berry, Curiae, Amici Behalf Weinmann, & Appellant. Respondent. for Young
William E. EDMONDS, In 1935, patient a Hospital J. while in the Good E. Charles was burned placed against body, hot water which a nurse bottles his appeal judgment awarding present damages him the', injuries. for his The concedes the sufficiency of negligence nurse, evidence to establish on the only point presented for decision is appellant whether the organization so, and, if is a entitled to liability. tort appeal is the third This the case. After the first trial action, the District Court judg- reversed a for ment rendered a directed verdict. Samaritan, 16 App. Cal. (England Hospital jury trial, a second (2d) (2d) granted the trial court returned a verdict for the order af Upon appeal, a motion a new trial. for Samaritan, 22 (England firmed. Good ap third judgment is from trial. peal followed Sep- tending that in Plaintiff introduced evidence show tember, 1935, undergo surgical he advised he should operation, applied hospi- for the defendant admittance to tal; applied that at time he admission of the Good quoted per Samaritan $25 a rate of week hospitalization, which included room, nursing services and inquiry He board. made no and was informed that the was, be, or claimed to organization, and he knowledge concerning had no institution’s status regard during Charges the time he was it. were him quoted made to at rate and he the bills rendered. separate charges negligence, As a defense to the hospital alleged times that at all since its it has nonprofit sharing, eleemosynary, been a charitable institution *3 maintained for the of giving medical care to the sick Upon and unfortunate. the trial evidence was offered in support of allegations these from which the found that years in inclusive, hospital operated 1931 to was purposes. for charitable Another is finding hospital that the ordinary in exercised care employees. selection its However, the charity court concluded that requested no was England by nor extended to Mr. hospital and that the is not injuries entitled from for the inflicted nurse. its Although hospital found that the is the trial court chari- may reasonably institution, it be inferred from table the evi- only that such is attributable to it dence a character because from apparently very its it devotes the income successful part to assist those who cannot all or business of the needed care. The during cost of medical record shows that injured, in Mr. year was it had an income $732,129, from received revenue contributions churches, an fund, profits from returns from endowment from pharmacy fountain, lunch-counter soda and commis- collecting received for doctors’ In year sions bills. operating profit net hospital $62,767; on Decem- 31, 1935, ber surplus $65,470 earned between 1931 operations and 1935 it received $843,795, more than it paid out. In years, five shows, so the record took in it $2,822,674, $843,795 and had remaining after all paying expenses.
With this showing uncontradicted taken from the books of hospital it is difficult to see how the trial court found that the True, a charitable one. record in shows that 1935 the cost of charitable work done hospital $25,967, represents only this amount value of the services charged at the rates paying patients and money paid out.
However, in view of the decision of this court in Silva v. Providence p. (ante, (2d) 798]), concurrently argued which was counsel and considered importance question primary with the appeal, the hospital concerns the law of the contends that as case. operated pur- for charitable trial court found that poses, judgment cannot be because the deci- sustained appeals. sions rendered on the former reversing judgment hospital in favor of the after trial, first District “We can- Court of said: who, knowledge not hold that one without that a exempt institution and therefore be a charitable claims to liability, applies for admission and is received as a regular patient, paying the rates at which the derives injuries by negli- profit, is occasioned without redress gence employees on the theory accepting charity that he is the benefits of from a Our conclusion is line with the benefactor. decision (Stewart case. Medical etc. the Stewart Asso- California The trial ciation, 178 Cal. court erred jury plaintiff’s the issue of to submit to refusing claim profit was conducted for and defendant’s operated charity.” only (England that was claim *4 Samaritan, 16 App. (2d) Cal. 640, 643 Pac. [61 When case next came before appellate court, the same granting order new trial was affirmed upon several requested of which was that a grounds, one instruction of given plaintiff should have been the jury. in- This
795 nonliability struction is was to the effect that the defense of unavailing organization if patron to a charitable had knowledge no concerning regular its character and charged by profit”. (Eng- rates it “from which it derived a land v. supra.) Good These two concerning rights parties, says hos- statements pital, together, construed when case establish the law of the requires a reversal judgment. recognized
The doctrine of the law of the case is (2 947) a harsh one Jur. Cal. and the modern is that view application of it results it should when the not be adhered to unjust (United Dredging in manifestly Co. v. decision. Com., 922].) Industrial Acc. 208 705 How Pac. [284 ever, is generally followed this state. But a court absolutely precluded by law case from recon sidering questions upon appeal. decided a former Pro jurisdiction cedure and not is involved. Where there are exceptional circumstances, looking just court which to a rights parties litigation determination of the merely practice, may and not to rules of and should decide gone (Messen regard the ease without to what has before. ger Sup. 225 436 Anderson, 739, U. S. 56 v. Ct. Ed. L. [32 Seagraves Wallace, ; 163; Fed. McGovern 1152] Eckhart, 200 Wis. N. W. A. 67 L. R. [227 rigid
In the
appeal,
adherence to the law of
compel
unjust
the case would
a most
decision.
It is conceded
injured
that Mr.
seriously
while a
hospital.
case has
His
been tried three
ap
times with an
peal following
judgment.
each
On the occasions when it was
Appeal,
before the District
Court
concerning
law
tort,
of a charitable
as declared
was,
say
least,
courts of California
most unsatis
factory in
Following
its statement.
the dicta of Thomas v.
Soc.,
German Gen.
The District England’s Mr. appeal position took case the first somewhat between
796 limited ex recognized
these two It the rule but to a views. only, refusing pay to it to the of action apply tent cause of ing patient. has that charita This court now decided wrongs organizations exempt liability are ble (Silva negligently employees. committed their Provi Hospital, supra.) dence In the meantime Mr. has passed say may To now that his cause action not be on. of principles case, in the not determined stated Silva points withstanding fact all raised that it is decisive of exception relating with the of those to case, law the exalt form far above substance. of would therefore, judgment is, affirmed. Waste, Gibson, J., J., and Curtis, J., Houser, J., Carter, J., concurred. C. Dissenting. I dissent.
SHENK, J., institu of My views on the issue of thereof, the beneficiaries either tions from to carefully servants who have been nonpay, for the torts of my dissenting expressed opinion in the case are selected Oakland, 16229 F. No. Silva v. Providence S. of of accept I (ante, p. cannot 762 [97 great opinion herein runs counter to the majority authority weight to rule in this state. of the established requirements The defendant satisfies the of defined the authorities referred to case, supra. in the Silva In fact the my dissent exempt was held be. here involved to a charitable institu- tion the case of Shane of (2d) The evidence in 1066]. of attests the correctness that conclusion for case incorporation by-laws disclose the defendant’s articles auspices established and is maintained under the that was Episcopal Church in the Diocese An- the Protestant of Los affording purpose surgical medical and geles for the aid to provide persons persons and disabled to such while sick with the ministration Gospel, inmates The board of they bishop if so desire. directors consists of the the rector of St. Paul’s diocese, Episcopal Church and parishioners of the diocese. It certain is also declared found, court therein, and the trial the defendant was not opera- from the realizing profits organized “for the foregoing, the de- hospital”. tion addition establish, the trial tending evidence fendant adduced method found, and no that it had no stockholders court persons made, and that no any distributing profits, if were any salary or hospital received employees other than ap- It also any defendant. compensation kind found, pears evidence, the trial from the patients, viz., *6 and three classes of receives treats defendant (1) charity are without indigent patients treated who (2) charity charge; patients pay por- are able to a who them; (3) tion and of cost the treatment afforded to the of pay patients financially charged fees for their pay able to the care and and treatment from which the defendant derives “profit”. for sent patients Defendant also cares Hope discloses, evidence and the trial Clinic. The also court found, paying the that defendant’s income is derived from Episcopal contributions from and churches returns an investment of endowment fund. It likewise receives operation proceeds pharmacy from its of lunch- A counter. financial put statement in discloses evidence that operating defendant’s annual each of years deficit for 1931-1934, inclusive, $32,240, $65,809, $45,246 was $3,278, 1935, respectively. year plaintiff’s of acci- dent, same surplus this statement discloses net $62,767. However, figures the record indicates that these merely dis- actually expended close sums “the . . . and do not include cost care”. The presence mere free surplus ultimately employed which in general its chari- purpose table does alter defendant’s character as a chari- (Baylor table institution. University Boyd, (Tex. Civ. 701.) App.) (2d) 700, 18 S. W. It was also herein, shown found, average and the trial court that cost of treatment per in day per $8.70 was 1931; $8.80 1932; in $8.09 1935; in 1933; in $7.06 $6.49 and that the average weekly to cost the defendant rendering hospitalization, nursing service, room and board plaintiff $45.43— was already paid, he stated, as $25 a week. It indigent persons further shown that were admitted without race, restriction to creed or color and that in 1935 work of the $25,967.30. cost Finally, profits “the it was shown that received from operation (1) hospital, made, are devoted to the care any when are anything; indigent pay to patients and treatment unable (2) patients pay amount to the care who are able to some thereof, their but than the cost toward care and treatment less (3) mortgage indebtedness and reduction of the to a operation hospital”. already mentioned, the trial findings
In addition to the “hospital operated by found the defendant plaintiff purposes” but was also found that and was not unaware of charitable character defendant’s contrary, recipient charity, that, any charges imposed pay patients, he had like other have de- it was found to hospital, defendant from which non-pay permitting care for its or char- “profit” rived it to mortgage In the ity patients reduce its indebtedness. and to case, pointed I latter elements were supra, out these Silva an quantities in the determination of whether institu- false exemption. in character and entitled to tion is charitable service, an institution render rather general to acquire members, profits among and distribute than Here, its charitable character. establishes Silva “merely ease, “profit” patients derived served any objective gen- of the institution—its foster the charitable to the afflicted being that of service rather than nature eral *7 profits”. and distribution of accumulation J., rehearing. Rehearing Shenk, denied. voted for a