Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-12-23
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIcEsrsD BY w. B. MARTIN.
Exclusively for vlrgln.an-pllot.,
MAIA's ADMIR-. ". EASTERN STATE
HOSPITAL.

NePASAiAS SooiS VI AppSdtS VI pITRlHla.
November 20, 1892
A PUBLIC CORPORATION CONSTR
TUTED SOLELY FOR CHARIT-
ABLE PURPOSES IS NOT LIABLE
FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF IT'S
SERVANTS OR AGENTS ARISING
from A CAUSE FOREIGN TO
THD OBJECTS FOR WHICH IT
WAS CREATED.
Maia's administrators brought suit
against the Directors of the Eastern
state Hospital, hospital for the In
sane, 10 recover damages for the death
of Nlaia, alleged to have been caused
by the negligence of the defendants,
OF It's agents, In requiring, or permit
ting, the intestate, while a patient. to
dig and excavate in the side OF an
embankment, without providing proper
supports to prevent the overhnngng
earth from falling OH him. The defend
ant demurred to the declaration, the
lower court sustained the demurrer
and plaintiff appealed.
The court says:
The first question to be considered
Is the character of the defendant cor
poration. Is the defendant q public
corporation--an agency of the State
exercising exclusively governmental
functions? An examination of the
statutes creating and continuing this
hospital shows that it was created and
exists for purely governmental pur-
poses and Is under the exclusive owner
snip ana control of the State. 1t has
no StocAnoidcrS. TO members even, cX-
cept directors, having no interest in It
or Its affairs, who are appoined by
the Governor by and with the consent
OF the Senate, and are in fact public,
rather than corporate officials.
1t Is plain upon the authorities that
the defendant Is q public corporation.
governed and controlled by the State,
and acts exclusively as an agency of
the State for the protection of
society and for the promotion of the
best interests Of the unfortunate peo-
pie of the Commonwealth of insane or
disordered minds.
The next question Is whether the
defendant. public corproation--an
agency OF the State exercising ex-
clusively governmental functions-is
liable for the injuries complained of in
the declaration.
In the case OF Sayre v. Northwest
Turnpike Co, 10 Leigh. 45l, It was held
that the action would not be because
the defendant corporation was COM
posed exclusively Of officers of the
government, having no personal in
tcrest in 1t. or Its concerns, and only
acting rs the organ of the Common
wealth. IN erecting great public I'M
provement. This conclusion is fully
sustained by the weight ofAhuthority.
The directors in this case clearly had
no right to pay damages for the griev-
ance complained OF out of any funds
under their control. Those funds were
appropriated by the State to pay the
expenses of caring for and maintain
ing the inmates OF the hospital and
not for paying damages resulting from
the negligent management of those in
charge OF 1T. If such damages were
charScable on the funds, or property
under the control OF the directors, their
payment might prevent the accom-
plishment of the very object for which
the money was appropriated.
That an unfortunate Inmate OF the
hospital should suffer from the negli-
gence or misconduct of the persons
administering the powers of the cor
poration or their agents or employees
is indeed hardship but we do not
think this hardship should be rene
died by giving damages to such a
one or his representatives the ex-
pense OF the other inmates of the
hospital or OF the taxpayers of the
State. For such negligence he should
be left to his remedy against those by
whose negligence he was injured and
whose liability for their own acts of
negligence must be determined by the
rules of law applicable to such cases
Affirmed.