Cristini v. Griffin Hospital

Connecticut Superior Court

Cristini v. Griffin Hospital

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 279, 13 Conn. Supp. 279

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1945

DocketFile 61739

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 279 (Cristini v. Griffin Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cristini v. Griffin Hospital, 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 279, 13 Conn. Supp. 279 (Colo. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

WYNNE, J.

Implicit in this case as the complaint now stands is the defendant’s claim of immunity from tort liability even for corporate neglect because it is an eleemosynary corpor' ation. While our cases have not recognised the soNalled trust fund theory as reason for immunity of a charity, neither has there been a definition in terms of corporate negligence in the sense here employed. It is not inconceivable that a definition may be made that will take into account the question of finan' cial responsibility. To date the principle of public policy has not been made all inclusive. The benign theory of insurance is being constantly expanded and gives promise that realism may become the handmaiden of sociahmindedness. With such a hope this court has thorough sympathy. Certain it is that in the recent case of Edwards vs. Grace Hospital Society, 130 Conn. 568, the Supreme Court did not hold that the issue of in' surance coverage had no place in that case.

In argument the underwriting problems were touched upon, but these are merely incidental. The objective sought is much *280 more important. This court ventures to predict that in the long run even the interests that raise the point will find that “he profits most who serves best.” With faith so to believe, the court feels that the issue raised by the defendant should in fairness include the element the plaintiff seeks to inject.

The demurrer to the reply is therefore overruled.

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

WYNNE, J.

Implicit in this case as the complaint now stands is the defendant’s claim of immunity from tort liability even for corporate neglect because it is an eleemosynary corpor' ation. While our cases have not recognised the soNalled trust fund theory as reason for immunity of a charity, neither has there been a definition in terms of corporate negligence in the sense here employed. It is not inconceivable that a definition may be made that will take into account the question of finan' cial responsibility. To date the principle of public policy has not been made all inclusive. The benign theory of insurance is being constantly expanded and gives promise that realism may become the handmaiden of sociahmindedness. With such a hope this court has thorough sympathy. Certain it is that in the recent case of Edwards vs. Grace Hospital Society, 130 Conn. 568, the Supreme Court did not hold that the issue of in' surance coverage had no place in that case.

In argument the underwriting problems were touched upon, but these are merely incidental. The objective sought is much *280 more important. This court ventures to predict that in the long run even the interests that raise the point will find that “he profits most who serves best.” With faith so to believe, the court feels that the issue raised by the defendant should in fairness include the element the plaintiff seeks to inject.

The demurrer to the reply is therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 279, 13 Conn. Supp. 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cristini-v-griffin-hospital-connsuperct-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack