Conte v. Hospital for Joint Diseases

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conte v. Hospital for Joint Diseases

31 A.D.2d 744, 297 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4784

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 13, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 744 (Conte v. Hospital for Joint Diseases) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conte v. Hospital for Joint Diseases, 31 A.D.2d 744, 297 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 28, 1967 upon a jury verdict, affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff, a paying patient at the defendant hospital, has been awarded damages for injuries allegedly incurred when a hospital employee committed an intentional tort against her. Liability of a private hospital to a patient for intentional torts is not absolute. Instead, the hospital has the duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence in safeguarding a patient from harm occasioned by employees or third persons, measured by the capacity of the patient to provide for her own safety (see Robertson v. Towns Bosp., 178 App. Div. 285; Stone v. Risen Go., 219 N. Y. 205, 209; Van Patter v. Towns Bosp., 246 N. Y. 646; Bendrickson v. Bodkin, 276 N. Y. 252; Bogan v. Bospital Go., 63 W. Va. 84). In our opinion, the record supports a determination that the hospital was negligent, through the acts of its employees, in sending plaintiff, a nonambulatory patient, to one of its departments after hours for the department, under suspicious circumstances, and in failing, when notified that something was seriously amiss, to take any action. The record would also support a conclusion that the circumstances made a threat to plaintiff’s person apparent to defendant’s servants, whose negligent acts facilitated the assault. Hence, we need not determine whether a hospital would be liable for the intentional torts of its employee if it is found that he had acted outside the scope of his employment (see McKee v. Sheraton-Russell, 268 F. 2d 669), inasmuch as, under the facts herein, had the attacker been a stranger, the hospital’s responsibility for the dereliction of its duty to safeguard plaintiff would have been the same. We have examined all" of appellant’s contentions and find them to have no merit. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered April 28, 1967 upon a jury verdict, affirmed, with costs. Plaintiff, a paying patient at the defendant hospital, has been awarded damages for injuries allegedly incurred when a hospital employee committed an intentional tort against her. Liability of a private hospital to a patient for intentional torts is not absolute. Instead, the hospital has the duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence in safeguarding a patient from harm occasioned by employees or third persons, measured by the capacity of the patient to provide for her own safety (see Robertson v. Towns Bosp., 178 App. Div. 285; Stone v. Risen Go., 219 N. Y. 205, 209; Van Patter v. Towns Bosp., 246 N. Y. 646; Bendrickson v. Bodkin, 276 N. Y. 252; Bogan v. Bospital Go., 63 W. Va. 84). In our opinion, the record supports a determination that the hospital was negligent, through the acts of its employees, in sending plaintiff, a nonambulatory patient, to one of its departments after hours for the department, under suspicious circumstances, and in failing, when notified that something was seriously amiss, to take any action. The record would also support a conclusion that the circumstances made a threat to plaintiff’s person apparent to defendant’s servants, whose negligent acts facilitated the assault. Hence, we need not determine whether a hospital would be liable for the intentional torts of its employee if it is found that he had acted outside the scope of his employment (see McKee v. Sheraton-Russell, 268 F. 2d 669), inasmuch as, under the facts herein, had the attacker been a stranger, the hospital’s responsibility for the dereliction of its duty to safeguard plaintiff would have been the same. We have examined all" of appellant’s contentions and find them to have no merit. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 744, 297 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conte-v-hospital-for-joint-diseases-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack