Title: Bartlett v. Argonaut Insurance Companies
Citation: 523 S.W.2d 385
Docket Number: 75-15
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: June 2, 1975

523 S.W.2d 385 (1975) Helen BARTLETT and Earl Bartlett, her husband, Appellants, v. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANIES, Appellee. No. 75-15. Supreme Court of Arkansas. June 2, 1975. Phil Stratton, Guy Jones, Jr., Conway, and Dan Stephens, Clinton, for appellants. Smith, Williams, Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark by W. A. Eldredge, Jr., and J. D. Watson, Little Rock, for appellee. BYRD, Justice. Appellant Helen Bartlett, following back surgery in the Memorial Hospital, North *386 Little Rock, Arkansas, became infected with staphylococcus aureau coagulase positive, sensitive to many antibiotics. Based upon the depositions of Mrs. Bartlett, her husband and mother, hospital records, and the affidavits of the hospital administrator and Mrs. Bartlett's treating physician, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, Argonaut Insurance Companies, the hospital's insurance carrier, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 66-3240 (Repl.1966). For reversal the appellants, Mrs. Bartlett and her husband, Earl Bartlett contend: The affidavit of I. Leighton Millard, M. D., Mrs. Bartlett's treating physician is as follows: The counter-affidavits filed in response to the motion for summary judgment stated in effect that the several counts in the complaint "are supported and will be supported at trial by substantial evidence to show that Memorial Hospital: (A) failed to exercise due care in the prevention and control of staphylococcus; and (B) followed *387 poor housekeeping techniques which contributed to the growth and spread of staphylococcus." POINT I. We find no merit in the contention that res ipsa loquitur should be applied in this hospital infection case. As pointed out in the affidavit of Dr. Millard, it is impossible for a hospital to be in complete control of a staph germ which may be brought in by the patient. Consequently, since a hospital cannot be said to be in complete control of that which the patient himself may carry, it follows that res ipsa loquitur cannot be applied. See Dollins v. Hartford Accident &amp; Indemnity Co., 252 Ark. 13, 477 S.W.2d 179 (1972). POINT II. The only proof in the record is the uncontroverted affidavit of Dr. Millard that the prevention, discovery and control of staph infections are not commonly known and relate to subjects which require medical and scientific knowledge for a proper understanding. Consequently, we cannot say that the trial court erred in holding that expert testimony is necessary to show that a hospital used substandard housekeeping procedures. See also, Aetna Casualty &amp; Surety Co. v. Pilcher, 244 Ark. 11, 424 S.W.2d 181 (1968), to the same effect. POINT III. We find no merit in the contention that the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment. The depositions of the Bartletts were to the effect that the hospital floors were not swept every day and that some of the nurses wore their hospital uniforms from home, but there is no proof by the appellants to show that such conduct on the part of the hospital was a proximate cause of the staph infection. With reference to the respondent's duty to respond to a motion for summary judgment in Booth v. McCord, 248 Ark. 1213, 455 S.W.2d 868 (1970), we said: Affirmed.