Joel v. Woman's Hospital

New York Supreme Court

Joel v. Woman's Hospital

35 N.Y.S. 37, 89 Hun 73, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 73, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 430, 2 N.Y. Ann. Cas. 264

New York Supreme Court·Decided July 26, 1895·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

The plaintiff was a patient in the defendant’s hospital from September 15 to December 15, 1892. While there she was placed under the influence of an anaesthetic during the performance of an operation. The evidence showed that patients, after undergoing operations, were usually placed on beds that were heated with bottles of hot water. The plaintiff was placed in a bed heated in that manner, but from which the nurse had neglected to remove the bottle, and the consequence was that her foot, coming in contact with the bottle, was severely burned. The evidence showed the defendant to be a public charitable corporation, and the appellant does not now deny that .such is its character. Being such, we are of the opinion that the complaint was properly dismissed. Van Tassell v. Hospital, 15 N. Y. Supp. 620, presented a case similar to that now before this court, and it was there decided by the general term of this department that the defendant was not liable except for the omission to exercise due care in the selection of its surgeons and other employés. In the absence of any controlling authority in this state, we are bound by that decision. The great weight of authority, however, supports the ruling of the trial court. McDonald v. Hospital, 120 Mass. 432; Insurance Patrol v. Boyd, 120 Pa. St. 624, 15 Atl. 553; Doyle v. Infirmary, 80 N. Y. 631; Harris v. Hospital, 27 Abb. N. C. 37, 14 N. Y. Supp. 881; Allan v. Steamship Co. (N. Y. App.) 30 N. E. 482; O’Brien v. Steamship Co., [38] 154 Mass. 272, 28 N. E. 266. In the case of Glavin v. Hospital, 12 R. I. 411, the ruling of the trial court, to which exception was taken, was much broader than in the case before us. In that case a verdict was directed for the defendant on the ground that a public charitable corporation was exempt from liability for any negligence on the part of its trustees, agents, etc. While there is very much in the opinion tending to support the appellant’s contention, the case as presented by the exception is not necessarily an authority in her favor.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BROWN, P. J.

The plaintiff was a patient in the defendant’s hospital from September 15 to December 15, 1892. While there she was placed under the influence of an anaesthetic during the performance of an operation. The evidence showed that patients, after undergoing operations, were usually placed on beds that were heated with bottles of hot water. The plaintiff was placed in a bed heated in that manner, but from which the nurse had neglected to remove the bottle, and the consequence was that her foot, coming in contact with the bottle, was severely burned. The evidence showed the defendant to be a public charitable corporation, and the appellant does not now deny that .such is its character. Being such, we are of the opinion that the complaint was properly dismissed. Van Tassell v. Hospital, 15 N. Y. Supp. 620, presented a case similar to that now before this court, and it was there decided by the general term of this department that the defendant was not liable except for the omission to exercise due care in the selection of its surgeons and other employés. In the absence of any controlling authority in this state, we are bound by that decision. The great weight of authority, however, supports the ruling of the trial court. McDonald v. Hospital, 120 Mass. 432; Insurance Patrol v. Boyd, 120 Pa. St. 624, 15 Atl. 553; Doyle v. Infirmary, 80 N. Y. 631; Harris v. Hospital, 27 Abb. N. C. 37, 14 N. Y. Supp. 881; Allan v. Steamship Co. (N. Y. App.) 30 N. E. 482; O’Brien v. Steamship Co., [38] 154 Mass. 272, 28 N. E. 266. In the case of Glavin v. Hospital, 12 R. I. 411, the ruling of the trial court, to which exception was taken, was much broader than in the case before us. In that case a verdict was directed for the defendant on the ground that a public charitable corporation was exempt from liability for any negligence on the part of its trustees, agents, etc. While there is very much in the opinion tending to support the appellant’s contention, the case as presented by the exception is not necessarily an authority in her favor.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Joel v. Woman's Hospital, 35 N.Y.S. 37, 89 Hun 73, 96 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 73, 69 N.Y. St. Rep. 430, 2 N.Y. Ann. Cas. 264 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

35 N.Y.S. 37 (Joel v. Woman's Hospital) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related