Case Name: Robert P. Weiss, as Administrator of the Estate of Providence L. Weiss, Deceased, Respondent, v. Harold Rubin et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Stanford Pulrang, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1961-03-02
Citations: 9 N.Y.2d 230
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert P. Weiss, as Administrator of the Estate of Providence L. Weiss, Deceased, Respondent, v. Harold Rubin et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Stanford Pulrang, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 230–235

Head Matter:
Robert P. Weiss, as Administrator of the Estate of Providence L. Weiss, Deceased, Respondent, v. Harold Rubin et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Stanford Pulrang, Appellant.
Argued January 12, 1961;
decided March 2, 1961.
J oseph J. Brophy, Desmond T. Barry and Richard E. Shandell for Stanford Pulrang, appellant.
I. There was not sufficient proof of malpractice on the part of defendant Pulrang to warrant the submission of that issue to the jury. (Pike v. Honsinger, 155 N. Y. 201; Robbins v. Nathan, 189 App. Div. 827; Morwin v. Albany Hosp., 7 A D 2d 582; Baidach v. Togut, 8 A D 2d 838; Blackburn v. Baker, 227 App. Div. 588; Bakal v. University Hgts. Sanitarium, 198 Misc. 651, 277 App. Div. 572, 302 N. Y. 870; Richardson v. Denneen, 192 Misc. 871; Baker v. Wentworth, 155 Mass. 338; Kawacz v. Delaware, L. & W. R. R. Co., 259 N. Y. 166; Fierro v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 256 N. Y. 446; Bullock v. Parkchester Gen. Hosp., 3 A D 2d 254, 4 N Y 2d 894.) II. If, on any view of the case, plaintiff was entitled to recover damages against defendant Pulrang, defendant Pulrang was entitled to indemnity over against the code fendants who were the only active tort-feasors in this case. (Putvin v. Buffalo Elec. Co., 5 N Y 2d 447; McFall v. Compagnie Mar. Belge, 304 N. Y. 314; Westchester Light. Co. v. Westchester County Small Estates Corp., 278 N. Y. 175; Tipaldi v. Riverside Mem. Chapel, 273 App. Div. 414, 298 N. Y. 686; Ruping v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 283 App. Div. 204.)
John J. Tomich, Joseph Dean Edwards and Olin S. Nye for Harold Rubin, appellant-respondent.
I. Defendant Pulrang was a joint tort-feasor and the evidence amply supports the jury’s verdict in that respect. (Robbins v. Nathan, 189 App. Div. 827; Morwin v. Albany Hosp., 7 A D 2d 582; Baidach v. Togut, 8 A D 2d 838; Richardson v. Denneen, 192 Misc. 871; Blackburn v. Baker, 227 App. Div. 588; Bakal v. University Hgts. Sanitarium, 198 Misc. 651, 277 App. Div. 572, 302 N. Y. 870; Bullock v. Parkchester Gen. Hosp., 3 A D 2d 254.) II. Defendant Pulrang was actively negligent and may not recover on his cross complaint. III. On the cause of action for conscious pain and suffering, the verdict was excessive and should be set aside.
William T. Gallagher for St. John’s Riverside Hospital, appellant-respondent.
There was ample evidence of negligence by defendant-appellant Pulrang. It being active and primary in nature, there may be no judgment over. (Phoenix Bridge Co. v. Creem, 102 App. Div. 354, 185 N. Y. 580; Scott v. Curtis, 195 N. Y. 424; Iroquois Gas Corp. v. International Ry. Co., 240 App. Div. 432; Schwartz v. Merola Bros. Constr. Corp., 290 N. Y. 145; Tipaldi v. Riverside Mem. Chapel, 273 App. Div. 414, 298 N. Y. 686; Adler v. Tully & Di Napoli, 274 App. Div. 1001, 300 N. Y. 662; McFall v. Compagnie Mar. Belge, 304 N. Y. 314; Putvin v. Buffalo Elec. Co., 5 N Y 2d 447.)
Emile Z. Berman and Ambrose Doskow for respondent.
I. The jury’s finding of negligence on the part of defendant Pulrang is supported by the evidence. (Baidach v. Togut, 8 A D 2d 838; Bakal v. University Hgts. Sanitarium, 198 Misc. 651, 277 App. Div. 572, 302 N. Y. 870.) II. The claim that the reduced verdict on the second cause of action is excessive presents no issue for review by this court. In any event, that claim is untenable. (Zipprich v. Smith Trucking Co., 2 N Y 2d 177; Dimon v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 356; Serano v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. R Co., 188 N. Y. 156.)

Opinion:
Fboessel, J.
Decedent died as the result of a transfusion of incompatible blood administered during the course of an operation at defendant hospital.
The liability of the defendants anesthetist and hospital are conceded upon this appeal. As to the defendant surgeon, we are of the opinion that, on the record before us, the question of his negligence was properly submitted to the jury for their determination.
The proof showed that he " initiated the blood bank in the Hospital "; that it was hospital procedure to prepare a written order for the production of blood for transfusion purposes during the course of an operation (except in emergency situations, concededly not present here); that " Nobody can order blood to the operating room except the Doctor"; that he had not ordered " the production of the blood in the operating room at that time ", and he knew that he had not ordered it—indeed, it had occurred to him at the time " to inquire as to how that blood got to the operating room ", but he did not do so.
The jury thus had a right to find that, in ordering the blood transfused without question and under those circumstances, defendant surgeon breached his duty of reasonable care to plaintiff's decedent.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.