Foye v. St. Francis Sanitarium & Training School for Nurses

2 La. App. 305, 1925 La. App. LEXIS 447
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 6, 1925
DocketNo. 2197
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2 La. App. 305 (Foye v. St. Francis Sanitarium & Training School for Nurses) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Foye v. St. Francis Sanitarium & Training School for Nurses, 2 La. App. 305, 1925 La. App. LEXIS 447 (La. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

REYNOLDS, J.

In this case Miss Lottie Foye sued the St. Francis Sanitarium and Training School for Nurses for $10,-000 damages alleged to have been sustained by her while underging an operation known as hypodermoclysis administered to her by Miss Ora Belle Hayden, a nurse in that institution, under the direction of plaintiff’s physician, Dr. G. M. Snelling, while plaintiff was a patient in the sanitarium.

Plaintiff claims that the hypodermoclysis was too hot at the time it was administered [306]*306and that it caused a severe burn which gave her great pain and left a permanent injury from which she limps.

Defendant filed an exception of no cause of action, and later answered denying liability on the grounds, first, that it is a charitable institution, organized for charitable purposes, and owed no duty to plaintiff other than the use of all needful care in selecting the nurse used by the physician employed by plaintiff and who administered the treatment upon plaintiff in this case; and, second, that in the treatment given plaintiff there was no fault or negligence on the part of the nurse, Miss Ora Belle Hayden, who administered the hyperdermoclysis under the direction of Dr. G. M. Snelling.

On these issues the case went to trial and there was judgment for defendant and the plaintiff appealed.

OPINION.

The exception of no cause of action cannot be sustained, for the reason that the allegation that the St. Francis Sanitarium and Training School for Nurses is a charitable institution is contained in defendant’s exception and not in plaintiff’s petition. The allegations of the petition as a whole, if taken as true, entitle plaintiff to recover.

On the question as to whether défendant used every precaution, care and good judgment possible in selecting Miss Ora Belle Hayden as one of its nurses, we quote the following testimony:

Mother Superior, pages 28 and 2§:

“Q. Mother, what care do you use, and what are the qualifications of nurses entering your institution for training; what care do you use in selecting those nurses?
“A. Well, they have to meet requirements of the United States Medical Board of Examiners.
“Q. What are those?
“A. Physical, moral and educational requirements; they have to be in good health;' have to be of good moral character, perfectly trustworthy, and at least have completed the ninth grade; and they have three months probation during which time we try them out to see if they are fitted to become a nurse.
“Q. Did Miss Hayden go through that test?
“A. Yes.
“Q. You know Miss Hayden, I presume?
“A. Yes.
“Q. What is your opinion of Miss Hayden as a nurse?
“A. Miss Hayden is, and has always been, one of our best and most conscientious nurses.
“Q. She has completed all the tests given by the Sanitarium?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And as outlined by yourself?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And proven to be satisfactory in every particular?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Ever been any other complaint about Miss Hayden, other than the present one?
"A. No.”

Dr. G. M. Snelling, page 40:

“Q. Do you know Miss Hayden?
“A. Yes, sir.” * * *
“Q. What is your opinion of her as a nurse — as to her qualifications at the time she took this case?
“A. She was a competent student nurse at that time; competent to do the nursing of the hospital.”

Dr. J. Q. Graves, pages 50, 52, 53 and 54:

“Q. Do you know Miss Ora Belle Hayden?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Did you know her on or about the third of October, 1922?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Are you familiar with her qualifications as a nurse?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q.' State what they were?
“A. She is so regarded by the profession and nurses also as a splendid nurse, very competent.” * * *
“Q. Is it customary to have the student nurses administer hypodermoclysis?
“A. Yes, sir.” * * *
“Q. Would you consider her competent to have charge of an operation like that?
[307]*307“A. Certainly do, Judge. She has given hundreds of them over there before she graduated.”

Dr. R. O. O’Donnell, page 55:

“Q. Do you know Miss Ora Belle Hayden?
“A. Yes, sir.” * * *

(Page 56):

“Q. I will ask you to. state her qualifications as a trained nurse on or about the 3rd of October, 1922, in your opinion?
“A. Í think she was a very competent nurse.” * * *
“Q. From what you know of Miss Hayden, would you consider her competent to administer this hypodermoelysis?
“A. Yes, sir; ' that is a very simple thing; nothing to do at all except to stick me needle under the skin. Very simple procedure. I think any nurse could do it.”
“Q. You say you taught Miss Hayden?
“A. She was in one of my classes; I taught her regularly at the sanitarium, and have for years.
“Q. How did she class as a student?
“A. Good.”

Under this evidence we are convinced that the St. Francis Sanitarium and Training School for Nurses used due care and was fully justifiable in selecting Miss Hayden as one of its student nurses.

Having used due care in selecting Miss Hayden as a student nurse, the law applicable to the liability of the defendant is fully discussed in the case of John Jordan vs. Touro Infirmary & Hebrew Benevolent Association, No. 135,097 on the docket of Division “C”, Docket 4, of the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans.

In that case the Civil District Court held that the only obligations that a charitable institution owes to the public either pay patients or charity patients, is to select with care and precaution the persons who act as nurses.

This case was carried to the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans and the judgment of the Civil District Court was affirmed.

On January 30, 1923, the Supreme Court of Louisiana considered the issues upon an application for a writ of certiorari and refuséd to issue the same, simply stating on the application the following words: “Refused. The decree is correct.”

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

Related

Garlington v. Kingsley
289 So. 2d 88 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
Grant v. Touro Infirmary
223 So. 2d 148 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1969)
Stamos v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.
119 F. Supp. 245 (W.D. Louisiana, 1954)
Thibodaux v. Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word
123 So. 466 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 La. App. 305, 1925 La. App. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foye-v-st-francis-sanitarium-training-school-for-nurses-lactapp-1925.