This is аn appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered June 18, 1969 in Columbia County, which dismissed the complaint, and from an order, entered June 16,1969, which directed dismissal and final judgment for defendant, after the jury had rendered a verdict for plaintiff.
On January 30, 1965, plaintiff entered defendant’s hospital suffering from osteоmyelitis of the right femur. On February 9, after a saucerization, or channeling and curetage, of the diseased member was performed, he was returned to his room in the hospital’s Unit K-3, a section caring for 39 to 41 patients. Bed rest was ordered. On the morning of February 18 plaintiff fractured his femur at the site of the infection, there being-testimony that he fell out of bed as well as of an admissiоn that he was attempting to walk to the bathroom. The complaint allеges that defendant hospital negligently allowed plaintiff to be plaсed in a bed not equipped with sideboards, from which he
There was no proof that defendant had notice previous to the accident of any deliriousness or confusion on the part of plaintiff in the period prior to the acсident, so that it could be anticipated therefrom that bed rails would be nеeded (cf. Guidetti v. Columbus Hosp., 17 A D 2d 609). Plaintiff’s attending physician testified that in the three or four days prior to the fracture he had not directed that bed rails be placed in рosition on his patient’s bed and that nothing in plaintiff’s condition in the two- or three-day period previous thereto suggested a need for them. Negligence cannot be premised alone upon the hospital’s failure to erect bed rails in the absence of a professional medicаl direction to that effect, since the decision to use that equipmеnt is medical in nature (Pivar v. Manhattan Gen.,
The 14 employees assigned to the Unit K-3 at the time of the accident included a registered nurse with over 13 years’ experience, five student nurses completing their last semester of three years of study, six student practical nurses, a floor clerk and an orderly. Additionally, there were available an undisclosed number of interns and residents employed by the hospital. Every witness who testified as to the adequacy of the staff concluded that sufficient help was available for the needs of the patients. A duty is owed by hospitals to exercisе reasonable care and diligence, not only in treating but in safeguarding а patient, indicated at least in part by the capacity of the patient to provide for his own safety (Hendrickson v. Hodkin,
The order and judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Sweeney, JJ.. concur.
Order and judgment affirmed, with costs.