*1 $6,475 Graystone pay which I from price bid Brumby. Brumby requested Mr. be handled Richard G. salary. employment a . .” Whether the contract week $150 by plaintiff de- considered as contended should have been with the fendant counterclaim is a factual issue resolution interfere. court cannot Pannell, J., Bell, J., spe- Judgment C. concurs. concurs affirmed. cially.
Argued January 9, 5, 1971 —Decided March Nall, Cadenhead, Dorsey, appellant. Miller & W. James Hancock, Smith, Oastler, appellee. R. Currie & Bert Judge, majority concurring specially. state Pannell, question "it quantum jury meruit then becomes a as to and, by the work if whether owner has fact been benefited so, If disagree recovery what I with this extent.” statement. upon quantum according meruit for work done not to con- tract, acceptance proven. the work It then must be becomes jury question, only as has not to whether owner fact been and, by so, extent; the work if to what but the must benefited accepted also determine whether the work was owner. words, ruling ques- "It a jury other should be: then becomes according the work accepted tion as whether done has work, contract, and, so, in fact been has benefited majority agree judgment, what extent.” with the as here, supported by the the ac- rendered evidence both done, re- ceptance of the work and as to value of benefit ceived, required. and both are
45616. MACON-BIBB COUNTY HOSPITAL
AUTHORITY v. APPLETON. February Argued September 197 0 Decided Rehearing Cert, applied denied March 1971 — for. *2 Harris, Watkins, Philip Taylor, Joseph Russell & R. H. Chamb- less, appellant.
Melton, House, McKenna, McKenna & Andrew W. Buckner F. Melton, appellee.
Jordan, Presiding Judge. 1. "In the absence anything contrary, every presumed possess ordinary adult is intelligence, judgment, Royal Co., Mfg. discretion. Hendrix v. Vale 134 Ga. (68 483).” Atlanta, Co., 712 SE Edwards v. B. & C. R. (10 449). 212, App. "Certainly, heedlessly a man cannot grave peril rush into he perfectly existence of which is anyone else, not, negligent then hold whether re- aware, sponsible consequences.” City Griggs, for the Columbus v. Ga. SE 84 ASR grave peril here involved would have been obvious to a adult, applicability foregoing principles normal and the present depends upon case whether the evidence of the mental condition of the support determination that he incapable understanding danger to which he sub- himself, jected consequences. and therefore not for the Although undergone mentally as a treatment person, mentally adjudged incompe- disturbed he had never been psychiatrist, On attending physician, tent. the advice of his voluntarily physi- entered the December This diagnosed "psychotic depressive cian his condition at that time as Explaining lay reaction.” the condition in it terms stated that necessarily person "does not mean that think. simply cannot It deep depressed to do with It has his mood. has to do with a mood. many experienced slight degree think of us have on a Monday morning. Monday’ you we just What call a 'blue when Well, particular feel bound. an feeling this is extension of this point really where the individual sick and can’t do for him- miserable, He perfectly feels immobilized and feels but he self. coherently still think logically can and reason.” This witness patient’s testified electroencephalogram also disclosed an pattern. abnormal wave plaintiff, November, 1969, age at the time of trial *3 been job laid off 1968 from his as a welder. He testified began he experience to the condition caused him to psychiatric
seek unemployed treatment because he was and be- money pay hospital cause lack of to for oper- bills his wife’s bladder, work, gall inability ation for the removal her of her things hospital of that While in nature. the from December, 14, 1969, January receiving he recalled three or four According shock physician actually treatments. to his he received treatments, January 1, five these commencing about 1969. He January 14, 1969, the contrary left to the advice of his physician. While the going out of he Birming- recalled ham, Alabama, pick up daughter, his who living with friends, and up guitar he also remembered breaking because play he couldn’t it. January policeman City
On a traffic of Macon pick up received call to person apartment "demented” at an address. A policeman "bluecoat” arrived at address moments lengths” "maybe twenty before—"three or four twenty- car or steps policeman clothes, five ahead.” The traffic observed scattered place, furniture guitar out of and a broken sticking with the neck apart- garbage plaintiff, out of the can. The who was at the arrived, time, policemen ment returned about this ac- when the companied by person. policeman another The traffic described the "wild-eyed.” plaintiff plaintiff a conversation with this plaintiff policeman suggested go hospital. to the The said, They plaintiff hospital. "I won’t then done left take me said, me, you further he "If will back.” After conversation take nobody plaintiff go, go will I won’t with then but else.” The ac- companied policeman emergency this to the room the voluntarily, physical without restraint and without untoward in- cident. hospital policeman emergency
A at room of the hour, engaged plaintiff in a an conversation about or an They together hour and patient’s assigned a half. walked hospital. room on the floor of the seventh This witness stated that plaintiff rational, cooperative although plaintiff did tell trying put away. this witness that his wife was him duty psychiatric nurse on ward first seeing recalled plaintiff January 17 around a.m. She had become ac- quainted him previously undergoing when he was treatment hospital. glad He told her he was to be back that he words, rational, help. quite very wanted In her pleas- "He seemed ant, very cooperative give any and he didn’t us trouble at all.” At p.m. accepted voluntarily dosage milligrams of 200 of Thor- azine, dosage prescribed him daily. to receive three times This medicine elsewhere identified as tranquilizer. The nurse completed p.m., her in the ward and the last time she saw leaving right. before was all p.m. shortly nurse who came on at 3 recalled that af- change ter the shifts the announced he was hospital, out of the and that he made statement more *4 than once. In one of his he statements said he wanted to see a lawyer getting patient about another out of ward the because "he Although didn’t feel was sick.” she there is no court order in the appears preceding evidence it his announced intention he had received information to the effect that of a court because order brought which permitted his wife he would not be to leave voluntarily. During the the he afternoon was al-
449 placed originally ward. He was of movement lowed freedom in Room room, nurse plaintiff was p.m., while the
About ajar moved and security in the room was screen discovered that a that a only way the nurse knew plaintiff Room 701. The to key, was of a opened was means security could be screen Suspecting that patients. not available to kept up and was locked defective, it the screen and that plaintiff opened had the means used—"we determine investigation to she conducted an nothing was a fine-tooth comb almost”—but went over with he ashtray. questioned plaintiff and except found a bent She Al- appeared calm and rational. He opening denied the screen. ward, were measures though the freedom he was allowed presence every 10 or 15 minutes. One on his instituted to check minutes, in every to instructed check specifically was attendant periodically of check- expressed intention to the nurse’s addition plaintiff he period the still asserted ing. p.m. At the 6 medication dosage prescribed to take his get was out and refused patient sitting The five attendants. Thorazine. She called standing behind the nurse. He down the five attendants were orally. dosage milligrams was a The of 200 took the medicine high The large dose” but tolerance. "rather taking made no further plaintiff was calm after this medicine and hospital. wanting statements this nurse about out p.m. standing Around 8 this nurse saw him at door his appeared glanced in room. He to be calm. his room to see if She anything disarray. was in down Some minutes later she went to check on the and discovered that the screen hall open gone. his room and that testimony of an ward The attendant who came p.m. duty. in substantial accord the nurse on every check attendant was instructed to on the him, time minutes less. last this attendant saw about 15 fall, before his down the hall from the television minutes came light cigarette, up room for attendant his walked back room, again hall out went his bed- television came checking checked room. While the attendant also disarray. nothing room and saw Both before after the *5 p.m. about 6 told medication this attendant was hospital night out of the the before was over. This attendant had no open reason believe that the could the in the screen Although patients room where he been transferred. who were very physically restrained, "violent or plaintiff hostile” were the acting was not in this manner. foregoing
We conclude from the evidence that whether the plaintiff responsibility adult, should be accorded the of a normal man, acting respect as a reasonable own to his conduct the as injuries, jury cause of his was a matter determination. jury a Inasmuch as could determine foregoing from the evi- may plaintiff dence that the not have been accountable for his own injuries, controlling unorthodox conduct which his caused the issue appeal on this is whether under the evidence a could hospital, through agents servants, also determine that the its and requisite failed the necessary prevent to exercise care the occur- rence. posture of presented appeal case on think we
defendant is judge bound the action of the placing trial on agents duty and its and servants a to exercise ordi- nary care. The evidence fails establish of as matter law that pay patient not a was "it well and is established that pay patient owes a ato to exercise such reason- looking able care after protecting as his condi- tion, known through agents its and servants charged him, looking supervising of may after and require, but the patient’s safety. an insurer of 595-596, Hospitals Asylums, 14; AmJur 41 CJS § (3). Hospitals, Cases, See for Georgia collection of § 12A Ga. Digest Hospitals, Authority Hospital City 7.”§ St. of of Marys Eason, v. Assuming announced intention place sufficient to the hospital agents or its servants notice attempt that he would physical to breach the imposed barrier screens, security locked the evidence amply demonstrates that be impossible screens, to break one of these unless one possessed gargantuan strength, ingenious enough, hand, using any materials to devise unlocking some means of years, and BIC used for a number had been screen. screens patients request, as no one had normally pens issued were pen BIC could be used as that a slightest reason to believe Even we key designed to the screens. for the unlock substitute plaintiff’s activities that a continuous surveillance assume injuries, impose such a prevented self-caused would have *6 duty agents effect hospital and its or servants on the safety, and exceed a impose insuring his would far a of here shown. of reasonable care under the circumstances standard negli- course, ordinarily recognize, what constitutes We of determination, se, jury hut gence, except negligence per for present in the we find perusal from a the entire evidence case of hospital, through whereby jury conclude that the no a could basis servants, for agents or to exercise care its failed reasonable safety plaintiff. of the refusing to a verdict for de- judge trial erred in direct refusing grant judgment
fendant and n.o.v. J., J., Been, Bell, Hall, Judgment C. P. Eberhardt reversed. Evans, JJ., JJ., Pannell, Quillian, dissent. concur. Whitman Pannell, ruling in dissenting. I from the Divi- Judge, dissent my opinion, In opinion judgment 2 of sion and the reversal. clearly liability hospital authority of the defendant question jury the evidence disclosed determine. Since opening security plaintiff had one of the succeeded opened except and that these screens could not be one screens ingenious "possessed Gargantuan strength, enough, using of hand, any unlocking to devise means of materials some put plaintiff screen” the on notice either that possessed Gargantuan strength necessary ingenious or was hand, enough using any materials at to devise some means of unlocking a screen. The attendants assumed ashtray. ques- jury with a bent It was a unlocked the screen assumption tion as to whether this was arrived at the exercise ordinary care and whether a search was re- quired ordinary majority in the care. The reaches a exercise slightest to believe that a conclusion "no one had reason key pen designed to un- BIC could be used a substitute very be lock the While this conclusion well au- screens.” evidence, thorized question it is not demanded. This is a jury only for the under all the facts and circumstances of the that, jury case. The was authorized to find in the exercise of ordi- care, nary pen should have known a BIC would fit retaining the lock on the "[a] screen. If continuous surveillance of (and plaintiff’s necessary” activities was could have so found), imposition then the of such does hospi- not make the plaintiff’s safety. tal an insurer See this connection (1) (171 Emory University Shadburn, v. App. 192); 47 Ga. SE (174 Murrah, Inc., Lathan v. App. SE2d A jury may greater find may required amount of care be under some legal circumstances to meet the ordinary standard of care required than would the circumstances were different. See in connection, (8) Wright Dilbeck, v. App. Ga. 715). my opinion, the evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict rendered.
I am Judges Quillian, Whitman, authorized to state that Evans, concur in this dissent. Judge, dissenting. Plaintiff was admitted to the Macon
Evans, *7 Hospital psychiatric treatment, story and fell from a 7th win- approximately dow ground 50 feet to the inju- and suffered serious ries. He against hospital, filed suit judgment and verdict and were in rendered behalf. During the trial defendant moved for a n.o.v., directed verdict and judgment for a which motions were judge overruled the trial appeals and defendant to this court. majority opinion The holds that there question was a as to whether for his actions as a normal majority adult. opinion The further pre- holds that it must be sumed pay-patient that was a and entitled to have the hospital exercise looking reasonable care in protecting after and him, to the extent that his condition as known to the might require. majority opinion The then although holds that plaintiff had announced his "breaching physical intention of (escaping hospital) barrier” from the require that to maintain plaintiff’s would, continuous surveillance of activities effect, in "impose safety, of insuring his and would far ex- care, ceed the standard of reasonable under the circumstances majority here opinion shown.” The recognizes states that the evidence but jury’s determination negligence is for a reasonable to exercise hospital failed not show case does in re- court the trial plaintiff, and reverses safety of care for the grant refusing defendant verdict for fusing to direct a judgment n.o.v. major- majority. The reasoning to follow difficult
It is owes that a "It well established ity correctly is states: looking care reasonable exercise such pay-patient to to a condition, to the known patient as his protecting the after and duty of charged with the through agents and servants its him, .” may require. . supervising looking after known to the plaintiff as condition of What was hospital’s part in look- care on the reasonable hospital? What him, knowledge? with such supervising ing after and patient in this plaintiff had been transcript shows The and that treatment prior occasions for shock hospital on same they when medicine call last resort "what treatments are such 17, 1969, suffering January help.” last admitted He was doesn’t reaction,” that he could which means depressive "psychotic admitting physician wrong. The distinguish right from even year plaintiff: "27 old hospital records as to this on the entered agi- my in an acute state office first seen white male was eat, angry, sleep, feels stating can’t can’t depression that he tated any- care about explode inside. He doesn’t feels like he decisions, fright- at times. He is suicidal thing, make feels cannot supplied.) (Emphasis ened that he hurt himself.” very important proving the language emphasized is — attention. This needed constant "out of his mind” and quite prophetic. and was signal for alarm was indeed a hospital had received a brought policeman who him time person,”’and at the "demented Signal which means a clothing, displaced custody, taking scattered place him saw *8 wild-eyed. furniture, that he was guitar, and noted a broken the officials hospital he told brought patient to the When trouble; wild and give that he is could some had one that that he hospital that policeman told the up apartment. tore lady policeman told the him. At the desk the have to watch we cannot charge: "If he hurts someone —we police have done all we can do. department Don’t blame the something happens. sorry, am this is all we can do.” The quick jumpy—nervous. was —
Thus, point fully hospital at this knew that it had its himself, frightened care a wild man who was hurt police for whom the accept responsibility refused to in the event that he hurt someone. What "reasonable care” did the then exercise under these unusual circumstances? day
About o’clock on that guard found the (plaintiff) standing in Room open. 710 with the screened window opened screened window onto the roof. This on was the 7th (Miss floor. The in charge Reynolds) nurse Joan Elizabeth as- himself, sumed that patient opened put window so she room, him in another to wit: Room type which had the same window, is, of screen on the type the same of screen that she just opened assumed he had in Room 710. This unusual occur- happened rence had never hospital. before One of the first statements he made to her was that he going get was out of hospitál day; and he continued to make that statement personnel various with whom he came contact. He given milligrams Thorazine, was heavy which is a dose. The nurse testified that did she not bind him down or use re- straining keep bed, devices to him in the although she had such p.m. devices available. At 6 prescribed he refused to take his dos- age of Thorazine and five attendants were called and he then took repeated medicine and that he get out of the hospital. searched, He nor was his bathrobe searched room, when he placed although he continued to main- tain that he was going get out. It was determined Glen Woolfolk, hospital employee, nurse, and the pa- head the,window opened tient had in Room 710 and had determined to try get hospital. out of the expected Glen try Woolfolk him to fallen, out and when he later heard that someone had knew who it was. The engineer chief type testified that screen used the 7th floor of the designed was not wards, psychiatric protection but type was for in use of less than maximum detention. It Hospital was testified that Central State screen, type windows, uses the same but also uses bars *9 were used the Macon no bars or locks on the windows whereas him maintaining constant surveillance over Hospital. Instead of room, confining him to by placing guard in his and instead of purpose, the bed the devices which were available for that his checking every him 15 minutes. hospital contented itself being During periods 14-minute when he was not one of the mind, on, plaintiff, in demented state of tied bed checked the his bed, win- together sheets and tied them to the removed the screen through the window dow as he had done Room 710 and went ground. approximately and fell 50 feet to the it Was this reasonable care "under the circumstances?” Was No, simple my opinion, gross negligence. The even care? it was majority opinion amply it states "evidence demonstrates impossible would be to break one of these screens unless one was possessed Gargantuan strength, ingenious enough, using or was hand, any unlocking materials devise some means of majority patient screen.” How can the so contend when this same opened during an identical screen in an identical room hospital opened same afternoon? The knew he had screen 710; why expected open Room should it not have that he would frightened the one in Room 701? knew that he was himself, Department and that he hurt and that Police City him, willing of the of Macon was not to be yet proper steps prevent and injuring failed to take his him- self. majority opinion required asserts that the was not activities, plaintiff’s
to maintain a continuous surveillance of impose impose such would of insur- ing safety, and would thus exceed the standard of reasonable support care under the circumstances here. In of this contention 595-596, majority opinion Hospitals Asy- cites 26 AmJur lums, reading perti- 14. But a careful of that section reveals this § meaningful language, nent and to wit: "In some cases failure may give negligence.” of a nurse to constant attention amount to Assn., Citing Maternity Hospital Wetzel v. Omaha & General completely Neb. 636 NW AC 1915B We feel this disproves position majority correctness assumed Further, effect, opinion. Georgia held our courts have to the same necessary in is, in some cases constant surveillance Emory University care. case of order to exercise reasonable (2) (171 192), in a Shadburn, App. SE v. Ga. delirious, was known to hospital became which condition private ". . . the inference is authorized hospital, and this court held: having charge that the authorities care, should, in due antic- knowledge the exercise of of these facts opportunity presented, ipate patient, that the should *10 means, by jumping some out endeavor to leave the authorities, knowledge, with such of a window. Where safeguard against her neglect guard patient and fail herself, by guard and in failing to have a nurse on con- harm to patient, attendance and where reason of such fail- stant jumps her bed and out of a window and ure leaves injuries, hospi- physical suffers an inference is authorized that duty owing guilty negligent tal is of a failure to exercise damages patient, and is liable to the therefor.” Murrah, Inc., (Emphasis supplied.) Again, the case of Lathan v. (174 269) 554, App. question hospital’s 121 of a Ga. 557 SE2d discussed, "However, duty and this court held: there be evi- jury might dence from which the find that the defendant owed a circumstances, duty, under the not to leave the decedent unre- strained, responsible and that this was breached and was result, fall, a fall did or contributed to caused death, granting court erred in decedent’s the lower would have verdict. There evidence which the a directed from could duty, the defendant owed under the have determined circum- stances, unrestrained, momentarily; not to leave decedent even breached; this and that defendant was plaintiff’s (Emphasis supplied.) judges the fall of mother.” Seven opinion, and two concurred dissented. person may gross negligence
Reasonable care as to one be as to try guard There no room of a another. reason perfectly person normal whose mind is sound and who is not un- mind, drugs. But der the influence of as to one who is out himself, likely escape, to hurt and has announced his intention to already escape, surely who demonstrated that he can rea- has required guarded. he be sonable care that he be restrained or that
457 authority here that citation of needs no plain and The law is Further, a by judges. by juries and is to be decided negligence a con if there is on motion granted must not verdict directed infer deductions and evidence, if the reasonable nor flict in the (Ga. 1961, 216); p. L. 110-104 it. Ann. demand Code § do not ences 246, 248; 1967, 226, 237; 656; (Ga. 609, pp. 1966, pp. §50, L. CPA State, 224 Ga. v. §81A-150). Pritchard See also Ann. Code 808). arising (164 Further, inferences deductions and all 779 SE2d favorably toward the most be construed the evidence must from Mayor &c. v. verdict. Jones for directed opposing the motion party Roberson, (1) (123 420); Curry v. Athens, App. 86 SE2d Ga. 105 282). (75 directing a question of SE2d App. 87 Ga. jury has that a when we remember compounded is further verdict to disbe testifies and part what a witness right to believe interest thereof, the witness has an especially where part lieve a (such physician). employee in the case as an 306); v. State, Adams SE 157 Ga. Campbell v. (4) (126 Blackstock, 769); v. Adams, Powell SE2d (5) (13 judge have How would the trial App. Ga. witnesses, testimony who of defendant’s parts of the known which all, case, For after to credit or discredit? interest in the had an *11 part, part may and disbelieve only believe parts of know which judge. And how can this court not the jury, testimony been believed would have parts disbelieved? in this I the trial court reasons would affirm
For all of these case. by Judge Pannell. concur the dissent also WALKER v. HALL. Hall, sequel Walker v.
Jordan, Presiding Judge. This case is a by the father It was instituted App. 11 provi- claimant under alleged lawful the deceased as The defendant moved wrongful death statutes. sions of proof of support thereof submitting summary judgment,