Case Name: Irene WILLIAMS et vir, Appellants, v. ST. ANTHONY'S HOSPITAL et al., Appellees
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1968-05-13
Citations: 431 S.W.2d 377
Docket Number: No. 7852
Parties: Irene WILLIAMS et vir, Appellants, v. ST. ANTHONY’S HOSPITAL et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 431
Pages: 377–380

Head Matter:
Irene WILLIAMS et vir, Appellants, v. ST. ANTHONY’S HOSPITAL et al., Appellees.
No. 7852.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.
May 13, 1968.
Rehearing Denied June 17, 1968.
A. W. Salyars, Lubbock, for appellants.
Simpson, Adkins, Fullingim & Hankins, and Jewett E. Huff, Amarillo, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
CHAPMAN, Justice.
Appellants, Henry Williams and wife, Irene Williams, sued St. Anthony's Hospital and The Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Inc. doing business as St. Anthony's Hospital, Inc. for bodily injuries sustained by Mrs. Williams while a patient in said hospital.
A motion for summary judgment was filed by appellees on the ground that the hospital and other named corporation were charitable nonprofit institutions and consequently immune from liability for negligence. The summary judgment components in support of such immunity show the institutions as charitable, nonprofit institutions. No affidavit is filed by appellants contesting the operation of the hospital as a charitable institution, nor do any of the depositions show any probative evidence contrary thereto.
A court-made rule in Texas established the immunity of charitable institutions from tort liability for injuries to beneficiaries of charity, as well as to strangers sustaining no relation to the charity, in Southern Methodist University v. Clayton, 142 Tex. 179, 176 S.W.2d 749 (1943). That doctrine was adhered to in Watkins v. Southcrest Baptist Church, Tex., 399 S.W.2d 530. By concurring and dissenting opinions, 399 S.W.2d 535, 536, such opinions announced: " I believe that the Court should declare that particularly in cases arising after this case becomes final, it would feel free to reexamine the doctrine." [Mr. Justice Greenhill concurring]
"I concur in the judgment of affirmance in this case, but would announce now that the doctrine of charitable immunity will not be recognized in cases hereafter arising." [Mr. Justice Walker concurring]
"The doctrine of charitable immunity is a court-made doctrine. I would abolish it outright, preferably instanter, without distinction as to the nature or character of the various charitable organizations. I would agree to abolish it prospectively so that liability would attach only in cases arising hereafter. Finally, if driven to it, I would abolish it effective upon adjournment of the Regular Session of the 60th Legislature in 1967, thus permitting the Legislature to act in the matter if it wished to do so.
"Believing that the doctrine should be abolished here and now. I would reverse the judgments of the courts below and remand this cause to the trial court for trial on the merits.
"Accordingly, I dissent." [Chief Justice Calvert dissenting, joined by Mr. Justice Smith]
The bodily injuries alleged herein occurred on or about September 5, 1963. At that time the supreme judicial rule of this state was that of Southern Methodist University v. Clayton, supra, without any dissent of our court of last resort or any caveat indicating the court might make a change in the charitable immunity doctrine.
Therefore, we have no choice as an intermediate appellate court except to follow the rules of charitable immunity made by our Supreme Court in CLAYTON and reaffimed by the majority in WATKINS, subject to prospective change after due warning.
Accordingly, the judgment summarily rendered is affirmed.
. All emphases are ours.
. All brackets herein are added.