Payne v. Garvey

142 S.E.2d 159, 264 N.C. 593, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1245
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 2, 1965
Docket848
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 142 S.E.2d 159 (Payne v. Garvey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Payne v. Garvey, 142 S.E.2d 159, 264 N.C. 593, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1245 (N.C. 1965).

Opinion

*595 PeR Cueiam.

The plaintiff admits the defendant Hospital is an eleemosynary institution, and perhaps not responsible under respondeat superior rules for the negligent acts of its employees. She does contend, however, that the hospital was under a positive duty to furnish safe equipment, including thermometers, for the use of employees in treating the hospital patients. If we accept the proposition that the hospital was charged with that duty, its exercise would require due care in the selection, inspection, and maintenance of the equipment. At most, the hospital was required to furnish standard equipment and to make reasonable inspection and remedy any defects discoverable by such inspection. The hospital did not guarantee a glass thermometer against breakage. Wherein the hospital failed to exercise due care in any particular, the evidence does not disclose.

Something more than an accident and injury is necessary to make out a case of actionable negligence against either the hospital or Dr. Sohmer. In fact, Dr. Sohmer did no more than have the plaintiff admitted to the hospital.

The plaintiff's own witness testified the student nurse had been instructed in the simple procedure of taking temperature and perhaps had several months experience in that procedure. The evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff does not bridge the hiatus between the accident and the injury. Negligent causation does not appear. The demurrer to the evidence was properly sustained. Judgment dismissing the action was required.

Affirmed.

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

Related

DeMarco v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2019
Blanton v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, Inc.
354 S.E.2d 455 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1987)
Campbell v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc.
352 S.E.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1987)
Burns v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc.
344 S.E.2d 839 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Jones v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital
286 S.E.2d 374 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)
Cox v. Haworth
283 S.E.2d 392 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
Darsie v. Duke University
268 S.E.2d 554 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Bost v. Riley
262 S.E.2d 391 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Starnes Ex Rel. Starnes v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority
221 S.E.2d 733 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)
Habuda v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, Inc.
164 S.E.2d 17 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)
Rabon v. Rowan Memorial Hospital Incorporated
152 S.E.2d 485 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 S.E.2d 159, 264 N.C. 593, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-garvey-nc-1965.