Case Name: BROWNING v. PADDOCK
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1961-09-22
Citations: 364 Mich. 293
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 10, 11, Calendar Nos. 48,478, 48,479
Parties: BROWNING v. PADDOCK.
Judges: Carr and Kelly, JJ., concurred with Dethmers, C. J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 364
Pages: 293–298

Head Matter:
BROWNING v. PADDOCK.
Courts — Precedents — Hospitals — Negligence — Equally Divided Court.
Summary judgments for defendant hospital.in action for negligent injuries inflicted by its employees are affirmed, where judgments had been entered before announcement of “new rule” by 4 of the 7 members of the Supreme Court participating in a decision which was then declared to apply to that ease and to all future causes of action arising after the filing of. the opinions therein, a majority of all 8 of the members of the Supreme Court not having embraced the so-called “new rule” imposing liability upon eleemosynary institutions for negligence of their employees, the court being equally divided as to whether the announcement effected a new rule of law.
Appeal from Wayne; Gilmore (Horace W.), J.
Submitted January 3, 1961.
(Docket Nos. 10, 11, Calendar Nos. 48,478, 48,479.)
Decided September 22, 1961.
Actions in case and assumpsit by Bessie Browning against George Paddock and Doctors Hospital, a Michigan corporation, for personal injuries sustained by reason of burns inflicted during therapy treatment. Similar action by Isaac Browning for medical expense. Cases consolidated for trial and on appeal. Summary judgments of no cause of action as to defendant hospital. Plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Beeerences eor Points in Headnotes
3 Am Jur, Appeal and Error § 1160; 26 Am Jur, Hospitals and! Asylums § 12.
Samuel W. Barr (Sanford N. Lakin, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Mansfield, DeWitt, Sulsbach & Jenkins, for defendants.
Amicus Curiae:
Marcus, Kelman, Loria, McCroskey & Finucan (,Sheldon Otis, of counsel), in propriae personae.

Opinion:
Dethmers, 0. J.
In Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, 361 Mich 1, the majority opinion of 4 of the 7 Justices of this Court participating in the case undertook to change the law in Michigan by overruling the long and consistent line of decisions of this-Court upholding the doctrine of immunity of an eleemosynary institution from liability for the negligence of its employees. In that opinion it was said that its so-called "new ruling" should apply to that case and to all future causes of action arising after September 15,1960, the date of filing of that opinion.
On that date the instant cases, consolidated for purposes of trial and appeal, were pending in this Court on appeal. Their common cause of action, predicated on liability of defendant charitable hospital for negligence of its employees, had arisen in February of 1957, just 5 years after the arising of the cause of action in Parker. On October 2, 1959, summary judgments for defendant hospital had been entered below. From those judgments plaintiffs had appealed here.
These consolidated cases were briefed and argued here in the October, 1960, term on much the same theories, on both sides, as in Parker. The results in the Parker Case were then called to the attention of counsel. The cases were put over, accordingly, until the January, 1961, term of this Court to permit further briefing in the light of Parker.
It is now urged by plaintiffs, inter alia, that the majority opinion in Parker is, in effect, "judicial legislation" and that permitting recovery under it to plaintiff in Parker but denying it to plaintiffs here because their cause of action, which accrued after that in Parker, had arisen before the filing of this Court's opinions in Parker, would constitute denial of the equal protection of the laws.
In response to all this, I would say that, a majority of the entire membership of this Court not heretofore having embraced the "new ruling" through participation in Court decision, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in Mr. Justice Carr's opinion in Parker. Consequently, I favor affirmance of the summary judgments for defendant hospital based on the doctrine of charitable immunity.
Affirmed, with costs to defendant hospital.
Carr and Kelly, JJ., concurred with Dethmers, C. J.