The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-02-18
Tho Legal Liability Of Hospitals.

In the Court Of Common Pleas. on Tues
day, Judge G1EGER1CH dismissed tho COM
plant in a suit against the Society Of the
New York Hospital for tho alleged negli-
gence OF the surgeons of that institution
in treating the son Of the plaintiff. who had
sustained an injury to his thigh.
1t was proved in behalf of the defendant
that the hospital was public charity and
that Its trustees had used due care to select
competent physicians and surgeons to do
the work Of the institution. The Court held
that this proof relieved the corporation
from all liability for the injuries sustained
by the patient.
This decision Is In accordance with cases
decided by the courts OF last resort in Mas
sachusetts and Pennsylvania. and one re-
Gently determined In this State by the Gem
eral Term Of the Supreme Court in the
Second Judicial district. The first case was
a suit against the Massachusetts General
Hospital. The complaint was that a frac-
tured limb OF the plaintiff had been i'm
properly set, owing to the negligence OF the
attending surgeon or student at the hos
pital. The Supreme Judicial Court OF Mas
sachusetts. speaking through Judge
DEvENs. held that in the case Of public
charitable institution. where there was no
neglect on the part Of the trustees. and due
care had been used by them In selecting
their subordinate agents. the hospital cor
poration could not be made legally respon-
sible for injury to patient. even II such In
jury occurred by reason Of the neglect OF
the physicians or surgeons employed.
The funds intrusted to it," the Court de-
clared. "are not to be diminished by such
casualties. II those Immediately controlling
them have done their whole duty in refer
ence to those who have sought to obtain the
benefit OF them"
The Pennsylvania case was an action
against corporation known as the 1nsur-
ance Patrol. organized to protect and save
life and property from destruction by fire.
In removing some canvas from property
which had been covered with it to prevent
injury by water a piece was thrown into
the street by one Of the employees Of the
Insurance Patrol. and it struck and killed
person who was passing at tho time. The
Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania held that
the Insurance Patrol was liable for the
negligence OF the servant whose act caused
the death. unless it could show that it was
public charity. and that its services were
gratuitously rendered to the public for the
public good: but the language Of the de-
cision assumed the law to be. as was held
In the Massachusetts case. that proof that
the corporation was Of q charitable nature.
and that its directors had been careful In
the selection OF their servants. would re-
lieve 1t from responsibility for the personal
negligence OF Its subordinate agents.
The New York authority to which we
have referred is decision which was made
at Poughkeepsie in July last. in suit |
against the Manhattan Eye and Ear Hos
pital. The plaintiffs eye was operated upon
at that institution. There was evidence
that the corporation had exercised all proper |
care In the selection and appointment OF |
the physicians of the institution. and that |
the operation itself was performed with |
skill; but the plaintiff alleged that he was
improperly directed to keep tho eye ban
daged when this should not have been done, |
and tho result was the entire loss of sight |
from that eye. The General Term OF tho |
Supreme Court reversed a judgment which |
had been recovered against the hospital |
upon tho trial. holding that no cause OF
action had been made out. inasmuch as tho |
defendant. being public charity. was not
liable except for an omission to exercise
due care in the selection Of the persons in
Its employment.
Mr.. Justice BARNARD of Poughkeepsie,
the presiding Judge OF the General Term.
says in his opinion in this case that the
Court Of Appeals OF this State. so far as he
has been able t2 discover. has never been
called upon to adjudicate upon the question
presented. There are now. however. several
cases on the way to that tribunal in which
1t will have to pass upon the legal PROPOSE
tons which we have now discussed.
Christian Science in California.
A woman has Just been tried and ac-
,nitt OIL In Gan Rnrnn rdin 70 I,,th |