Home/Supreme Court of Louisiana/Baton Rouge General Hospital v. Superior Cleaners

Baton Rouge General Hospital v. Superior Cleaners

93 So. 2d 20, 231 La. 820, 1956 La. LEXIS 1569
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedDecember 10, 1956
DocketNo. 42754
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 93 So. 2d 20 (Baton Rouge General Hospital v. Superior Cleaners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baton Rouge General Hospital v. Superior Cleaners, 93 So. 2d 20, 231 La. 820, 1956 La. LEXIS 1569 (La. 1956).

Opinion

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff, .Baton Rouge General Hospital, alleging that the defendant partnership and the individuals composing it1 were indebted in solido for treatment rendered by the hospital to their employee, Miss Dot Carlisle, a patient from February 2nd to August 30, 1951 — said hospital services having been allegedly rendered at the written request of Superior Cleaners and in reliance upon the undertaking of defendants to be responsible for the costs by virtue of having signed a “Request for Services from the Baton Rouge General Hospital”— sought judgment against defendants for $4,498.65, plus interest from August 30, 1951, and costs. Exceptions of no cause and no right of action were referred to the merits, following which defendants answered, admitting that one of the partners signed the “Request for Services” but otherwise denying liability. Trial on the merits resulted in judgment for the plaintiff, against the partnership and individually and jointly against the two partners (each for half), for the amount due for services to August 1, 1951, totaling $4,048.75; and defendants have appealed.

The undisputed facts are that on the 2nd of - February, 1951, ' Miss Carlisle, [823]*823while pursuing her duties as an employee at the cleaning establishment owned and operated by the defendants, paused with her back to a gas-burning heater in order to get warm; her clothing ignited and flamed, and garments below the waist were quickly consumed; she was wrapped in a blanket and Sam Maggio, Jr., one of the partners, ordered the operator to summon an ambulance. Miss Carlisle was accompanied in the ambulance by Mrs. Doris Maggio, wife of Ross Maggio, the other partner; and upon arrival at the plaintiff hospital was taken to the emergency room. Mrs. Maggio was directed to the admitting office, and while there Mr. Sam Maggio arrived. Together they supplied the information requested by Mrs. Ferguson, the admitting clerk, who wrote their answers in long hand in the spaces provided on the hospital’s admission forms, one being a form headed “Request for Services.” That document was handed to Mr. Sam Maggio for signature and he signed “Superior Cleaners¡’ below which he wrote “Sam Maggio, Jr., 3266 Plank Rd., B.R. La.” (The emphasis is ours in all italicized quotations herein.) Compensation insurance was carried in the name of the firm and to the extent of its liability under the law — at that time, $500 for medical, surgical and hospital services. The local agent for the insurance company was then advised of the accident. At the time the severity of Miss Carlisle’s injuries was not known. The patient, throughout her hospitalization, was attended by Dr. Joseph Sabatier. He was not employed by the defendants and was apparently called into the case because he happened to be present in the emergency room when she was brought in. No bills were sent by plaintiff to defendant Superior Cleaners or to either partner until August, 1951; it was then for the first time that a simple statement, dated August 1, 1951, on the plaintiff’s billhead, was addressed to “Mr. Sam Maggio, Jr., Superior Cleaners,” with notation “Account of Miss Dot Carlisle” and the words “Hospital account Feb. 2, 1951 to July 31 * * $4,048.75.” It appears also that less than three weeks after the patient had entered the hospital a letter dated February 20, 1951, from the New Amsterdam Casualty Company, which carried compensation insurance for the defendant firm, was received by the plaintiff advising that in view of the limited medical coverage in the compensation insurance carried by it for Superior Cleaners and the fact that Miss Carlisle’s bills would probably exceed that limitation, they would have to withhold payment until the total due could be ascertained in order that the amount might be prorated. This information was communicated to Mr. Sam Maggio in a telephone call from an employee of the hospital.2

The plaintiff’s action is based on the document reproduced below and marked P-1 for identification.

[825]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brooks v. Britnell
183 So. 2d 434 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1966)
Black v. Meadowview Homes, Inc.
181 So. 2d 468 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1965)
Fontenot v. Travelers Insurance Company
125 So. 2d 664 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1960)
R. W. Long Radio & Electrical Service v. Cadle
124 So. 2d 363 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1960)
Superior Cleaners v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
116 So. 2d 195 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 So. 2d 20, 231 La. 820, 1956 La. LEXIS 1569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baton-rouge-general-hospital-v-superior-cleaners-la-1956.