Case Title: Elliott v. Lea County

Citation: 267 P.2d 131, 58 N.M. 147

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1954-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
267 P.2d 131 (1954) 58 N.M. 147 ELLIOTT v. LEA COUNTY. No. 5732. Supreme Court of New Mexico. February 17, 1954. Neal & Girand, Hobbs, for appellant. Cowan & Schubert, Joseph O. Walton, Hobbs, Jones, Hardie, Grambling & Howell, El Paso, Tex., for appellee. LUJAN, Justice. John Elliott brought an action against Lea County to recover damages for injuries received by him when he stepped into an open unguarded and unlighted ramp while leaving the Lea County Community Hospital premises. The facts are that appellant's wife was a pay patient in the above hospital for surgery; that about eight o'clock in the evening, on May 28, 1951, appellant visited his wife and stayed with her for about an hour; that he had not been at the hospital before and when leaving he asked two employees how to get out; that they instructed him as to the proper exit but he did not understand them; that he saw a door in the hall which had a light with the word "exit" over it and departed by that door; that after he left the hospital through said door he knew that he had gone out the wrong exit; that there were no lights on the outside; that without knowledge of the terrain of the premises he attemped to work his way to the front of the hospital, and in almost absolute darkness crossed through a flower bed, two curbs and a hedge before falling into the ramp or excavation. The case was heard by the district judge and a jury. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case as well as at the conclusion of all of the evidence the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict in its favor, which motion was overruled by the court and due exception taken. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $5,000. Seasonably thereafter the defendant moved the court for a judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff or for a new trial. Whereupon the district judge granted the motion for a judgment in defendant's favor non obstante veredicto, and overruled said motion for a new trial. Judgment was thereupon entered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff and he appeals. The only error assigned by the plaintiff is that: "The Court erred in sustaining ground one of the Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and in entering Judgment in favor of the defendant notwithstanding the verdict." *132 Ground one of the motion reads as follows: The judgment entered against the plaintiff reads: The appellant relies strongly for a reversal on the authority of Barker v. City of Santa Fe, 47 N.M. 85, 136 P.2d 480, and asks us to extend the doctrine therein stated to the case at bar, but we are unwilling to do so. Two cases which lend support to appellant's contention are Henderson v. Twin Falls County, 56 Idaho 124, 50 P.2d 597, 101 A.L.R. 1151 and Suwannee County Hospital Corporation v. Golden, Fla., 56 So. 2d 911. The decisions in those cases rested upon the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions. The court held, in each case, that in supplying hospital care to paying patients the hospitals were acting in a proprietary and corporate capacity, and therefore liable to their patients for the negligence of its employees. The above cases represent decidedly the minority rule and we refuse to follow them. In Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County v. McCulloh, 52 N.M. 210, 195 P.2d 1005, we held that a hospital was a necessary public building as the phrase is used in Section 10 of Article 9 of the New Mexico Constitution, which permits counties to vote bonds for necessary public buildings, which, we believe, resulted in a holding that the operation of a hospital was a governmental function. We hold with the majority rule that the operation of a county hospital is a governmental function. In 20 C.J.S., Counties, § 220, pages 1075, 1076 it is said: Chapter 148 of the Session Laws of 1947 provides: It is to be noted that there is no provision in the act providing for suits against the counties for any dereliction of duty on their part, nor for any torts committed by any of its officers, servants or agents in the operation and management of hospitals. The instant case is controlled by what was held in Murray v. Board of Commissioners of Grant County, 28 N.M. 309, 210 P. 1067. In that case one of the approaches to a bridge on the Silver City-Deming Highway was washed out by an overflow of a creek over which the bridge was located. The county commissioners had taken no steps to protect the public from danger on account of the condition of the highway. The appellant, without negligence, drove his car over the bridge and into the excavation caused by the overflow, thereby suffering personal injuries and damage to his car. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and, the appellant electing not to plead further, a judgment of dismissal was entered. Mr. Justice Parker speaking for the court said: And in Vigil v. Penitentiary of New Mexico, 52 N.M. 224, 195 P.2d 1014, Justice McGhee speaking for the court said: In Moore v. Walker County, 236 Ala. 688, 185 So. 175, 177, the court said: See, also, White v. Alabama Insane Hospital, 138 Ala. 479, 35 So. 454; City of Dallas v. Smith, 130 Tex. 225, 107 S.W.2d 872; 26 Am.Jur. (Hospitals and Asylums) Section 13, page 594; Annotation in 49 A.L.R. pages 379, 380 and 384; Annotation in 101 A.L.R. page 1167; and Annotation in 16 A.L.R.2d 1083. In our opinion, nothing has happened in this state during the last thirty-one years which justifies our abandoning our declared policy. If the people of this state desire any change in this policy, it can be and should be done through the legislature and not by judicial fiat. It follows from all of the foregoing that the judgment of the district court was correct and it should be affirmed. It is so ordered. McGHEE, C.J., and SADLER, COMPTON, and SEYMOUR, JJ., concur.