96 Neb. 636 | Neb. | 1914
Lead Opinion
This is an action to recover $20,000' for alleged negligence resulting in the death of Alva J. Wetzel. Plaintiff is the administratrix of his estate. The Omaha Maternity & General Hospital Association, defendant, is a corporation conducting at Omaha a hospital for private gain. WTien Wetzel was ill with typhoid fever, he became a pa'tient, occupying a room on the third floor of the hospital. In absence of a nurse or other attendant, he opened a window and jumped out, falling to the pavement. From resulting injuries death ensued. In the petition it is al■leged that he was knowingly admitted as a patient when in a delirious condition, being constantly under some hallucination impelling him to leave his bed, to inflict self-injury, and to commit other irrational acts; that he was accepted as a hospital patient under an implied obligation on the part of defendant to furnish “all the care, nursing, attention, control,, oversight and medical treatment necessary, suitable or appropriate to his condition;” that, while he was suffering from mental derangement as a result of typhoid fever, he was negligently permitted to remain for
The principal assignment of error is directed to the overruling of a motion by defendant for a peremptory instruction in its favor; the ground of the motion being-that there is no evidence of actionable negligence. In support of the position thus taken, defendant insists that hospital patients were received under two forms of agreement, one for “special care” at the rate of $25 a week, and the other for general care at the rate of $10 a week; that special care required constant attention of a nurse in a separate ward; that general care required defendant to provide the patient with a bed in a ward with other patients, all under the charge of a single nurse; that Wetzel was entitled to and received general care; that there is no evidence to support the allegation that he was negligently permitted by defendant to remain for a long time entirely free, unrestrained, unattended, unguarded and uncontrolled in his room; that the nurse in charge of decedent had also the care of another patient in the same room and a patient in another room; that she had not been absent to exceed five minutes when Wetzel escaped; that when
There is testimony tending to prove the following facts: Wetzel had typhoid fever in his own home, but was taken to the hospital for better care and attention. The attending physician was selected by him and treated him both before and after his removal to the hospital. He had been intermittently in a delirious condition from fever before he became defendant’s patient, and remained so. A. member of a fraternal lodge, under authority from Wetzel and his wife, called the hospital by telephone to make financial arrangements for decedent’s care, and was told in answer to inquiries that arrangements had already been made for general care at ¡$10 a week, which was sufficient for a patient in his condition. Somebody in the hospital office had authority to answer telephone calls and to make arrangements for receiving patients, though the general manager testified he had not been informed of any telephone call on Wetzel’s behalf. On cross-examination he was asked: “In view of the known condition of the patient, you expect to give him the care that the condition requires?” He answered: “I will say yes, as far as that condition is known, for the time being.” The hospital was advised in advance that he had been delirious. To protect him from harm the hospital nurse, oh her own initiative, but with the subsequent approval of the physician, kept him for a time strapped to his bed. Though his fever remained high and his delirium continued, the straps were released by direction of the physician to permit frequent change of position, made necessary by premonitions of hypostatic pneumonia. The lower sash of the window was movable, unfastened and unprotected, when he jumped out. The nurse in charge at the time was an em
Defendant was incorporated to conduct a hospital for private gain, and as such it is liable in damages to patients for the negligence of its nurses and other employees. Hogan v. Hospital Co., 63 W. Va. 84, 59 S. E. 943; Fawcett v. Ryder, 23 N. Dak. 20; Arkansas Midland R. Co. v. Pearson, 98 Ark. 399, 135 S. W. 917; University of Louisville v. Hammock, 127 Ky. 564, 106 S. W. 219; Brown v. La Société Francaise, 138 Cal. 475; Croupp v. Garfield Park Sanitarium, 147 Ill. App. 7; Stanley v. Schumpert, 117 La. 255, 41 So. 565, 6 L. R. A. n. s. 306; Galesburg Sanitarium v. Jacobson, 103 Ill. App. 26; Sawdey v. Spokane Falls & N. R. Co., 30 Wash. 349; Gitzhoffen v. Sisters of Holy Cross Hospital Ass’n, 32 Utah, 46, 8 L. R. A. n. s. 1161; Phillips v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 211 Mo. 419, 111 S. W. 109, 17 L. R. A. n. s. 1167.
The rule of law stated rests on the general principle that a master is responsible for the torts of a servant in the scope of his employment. This doctrine applies to a hospital receiving for special care delirious patients, who on account of temporary conditions produced by fever or -other ailments are not accountable for their own acts or -conduct.
A patient is generally admitted to a hospital, conducted for private gain, under an implied obligation that he shall receive such reasonable care and attention for his safety as his mental and physicial condition, if known, may require. Hogan v. Hospital Co., 63 W. Va. 84, 59 S. W. 943; Fawcett v. Ryder, 23 N. Dak. 20; University of Louisville v. Hammock, 127 Ky. 564, 106 S. W. 219. Any other rule would be a reproach to the law and to hospital manage
Plaintiff made a case entitling her to damages in some amount, upon a finding by the jury in her favor, and the question of an excessive recovery is not properly raised.
Rulings in giving and in refusing instructions are chai-' lenged as erroneous; but, in view of the conclusion reached in regard to the evidence and the law applicable thereto, thei*e is no error apparent in the charge to the jury or elsewhere in the record.
Affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
It is said in the majority opinion: “A patient is generally admitted to a hospital, conducted for private gain, under an implied obligation that he shall receive such rea
There is no doubt that hospitals conducted for gain ought to be held to a very high degree of diligence in guarding the safety1 of helpless patients confided to their care. They should be compelled to respond in damages for any injury caused by the negligence of the employees under their control. With the advance in medical science- and skill the necessity for special equipment and conveniences for caring for the sick becomes more apparent. It has been stated in recent periodical publications that the-number of hospitals in the United States has doubled' within the last three years. It is therefore not only important that these institutions should be diligent in caring for their patients, but it is also equally important that they should not be held responsible either for accidents beyond their control, or for the irresponsible acts of a patient that no human precautions could have anticipated, or for the mistakes of others not under their control. For the purpose of this discussion we may consider that there are three general classes of hospitals: First, hospitals established as a pure charity caring for the unfortunates without charge; second, private hospitals for gain, which furnish accommodations, appliances and medical treatment; third, those that furnish rooms and appliances for
It is urged that it was negligence on the part of the nurse to leave the room, under the circumstances, while the patient was not confined, and so permit the accident. In this connection it is insisted that there was a special contract on the part of the friends of the patient with the authorities of the hospital that the patient' should have such care and attention as the circumstances and his condition should require; that he should have constant attention and should not be left alone; and that the act of the nurse in leaving him alone as she did was negligence. It appears that the deceased was a member of the “Yeomen
It was insisted that the defendant is responsible for the mistake of the nurse, if it was a mistake, in removing the straps, knowing as she did that the patient would at times be left without an attendant. It appears that the hospital furnished the room and its furniture and the necessary appliances, and also supplied nurses as desired.
The court instructed the jury that the charge of negligence in the petition was: “That defendant was negligent in leaving the deceased at the time unrestrained, unattended, unguarded and uncontrolled, and that said negligence was the proximate cause of deceased’s death.” The ■court also instructed the jury: “You are instructed Dr. Pinto was the doctor and agent of the said deceased, and for that reason it was the duty of the defendant hospital and the said nurse to obey said doctor in carrying out his ■directions while attending said deceased, and you are not to consider the removal of the foot restraints by the said nurse as an act of negligence.” The jury were also instructed : “If the defendant accepted Wetzel as a patient •and undertook to give him such care, nursing and attention •as was reasonably necessary in view of his known condition, and failed to keep and perform its undertaking, then and in that case the defendant is liable if the death of Wetzel resulted proximately from such failure, and your verdict should be in favor of the plaintiff, providing you find that said deceased would have recovered from said sickness had he not jumped from said window.” This instruction was clearly erroneous. The evidence would not