Emmett Mason v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

370 F.2d 925, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7866
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 6, 1967
Docket22878_1
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 370 F.2d 925 (Emmett Mason v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Emmett Mason v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 370 F.2d 925, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7866 (5th Cir. 1967).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company issued a general liability policy of insurance to Touro Infirmary in New Orleans, Louisiana. The policy contained a provision excluding liability for injury, sickness or disease due to medical or surgical services or treatment, or any service of a professional nature. The appellant, Emmett Mason, brought an action in the Federal district court, asserting in his complaint that while a patient in Touro Infirmary he was given a hypodermic injection which resulted in a nerve degeneration and the loss of control of his right foot. By interrogatories it was developed that the injection was given by a student nurse in the presence of a surgeon and a supervisor of nurses. Liberty Mutual pleaded the exclusion clause and moved for a summary judgment. The summary judgment was granted. Mason has appealed. He makes the ingenious but unpersuasive argument that while the treatment which he was given might have been “of a professional nature” under some circumstances, nevertheless there was administrative, as distinguished from professional, negligence in permitting a student nurse to administer the treatment or to administer it in an improper manner. The law of Louisiana controls and its law is “that in determining whether or not a particular act or failure to act is of a professional nature we should look not to the title or the character of the party performing the act but to the act itself. * * * ” D’Antoni v. Sara Mayo Hospital, La.App.1962, 144 So.2d 643. The act in this case, the giving of a hypodermic injection, is of a professional nature. The exclusion clause of the policy applies. The summary judgment was proper. It is affirmed.

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

Related

Millers Casualty Insurance v. Flores
876 P.2d 227 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1994)
Millers Cas. Ins. Co. of Texas v. Flores
876 P.2d 227 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1994)
Hollingsworth v. Commercial Union Insurance
208 Cal. App. 3d 800 (California Court of Appeal, 1989)
Hirst v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
683 P.2d 440 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1984)
Gulf Insurance Co. v. Gold Cross Ambulance Service Co.
327 F. Supp. 149 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
370 F.2d 925, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 7866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmett-mason-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-company-ca5-1967.