Court Opinion

ID: 9652676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:30:02.745768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:53.471038
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Mrs. Edith C. Lillywhite1 brought this action against Brigham Young University2 to recover damages for personal injuries.
The University is a nonprofit corporation. Its object, as set forth in its articles of incorporation, is to establish and maintain a college of learning. It was established in 1875 by the late Brigham Young, then president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by a deed of trust to provide educational opportunities to members of the Church. In 1896 it was incorporated by the Church and has since been maintained by donations and gifts from the Church and others, and from tuitions received from students. It has no capital stock. The average annual attendance from 1929 to 1939 was 2300 students. From July, 1896, to June, 1939, the Church appropriated for maintenance of the University, $5,884,272.32. In the year 1938-1939, the value of the educational plant was as follows: land and buildings, $1,-031,950.56,' equipment, $358,082.62. In the year 1938-1939, the ■ University received from the Church, $310,000, from endowment fund income, $4,971.34, and from tuitions, $152,032.91. Thus, it will be seen that the plant and equipment were provided with funds derived from charitable gifts and that the operating costs paid from funds derived from charitable gifts are substantially greater than the revenues derived from students’ tuition. The operating cost per student to the University is $175 per year. The tuition per student is $75 per year. The University accepts wid^ ows’ daughters at part tuition and grants scholarships to worthy students.
At the time of the accident the plaintiff was 18 years of age and a duly enrolled student at the University. During the spring quarter of 1933 she took a course, known as Chemistry II, which included laboratory experimentation. The accident occurred while plaintiff, Afton Kay Anderson, and Lucy Rice were jointly engaged in performing experiment No. 11 of Chemistry II. In the fall quarter of 1932 plaintiff had taken a course, known as Chemistry I, in which the instructor gave lectures arid conducted experiments. During that course the instructor had demonstrated experiment No. 11 and warned the students against the explosive hazard connected with the use of potassium chlorate and against the promiscuous mixing of ingredients without knowledge of their nature.
The manual, pursuant to which the students were conducting experiment No. 11, called for the mixture of either manganese dioxide or ferric oxide with potassium chlorate. It also called for the use of sulphur and red phosphorus to test for oxygen. It gave detailed directions as to each step to be taken by the student in carrying out the experiment. Chemistry II was taught by Dr. Johansen. On the day of the accident, plaintiff and her fellow students had completed experiment No. 10 which demonstrated the preparation of oxygen from oxides, peroxides, and chlorates. The text of the manual covering ex*844periment No. 10 contained the following caution: “Sodium or potassium chlorate mixed with a combustible material form an explosive mixture which may be set off by slight friction. Never mix anything with a chlorate unless you are instructed to do so.” After completing experiment No. 10, the plaintiff and her fellow students obtained the materials from the stock room for experiment No. 11. The materials were obtained in test tubes or beakers and were labeled by the plaintiff and her fellow students with slips of paper as they were handed to them by the person in charge of the stock room. The evidence established that the proper materials were furnished. Plaintiff and her fellow students set up their apparatus and proceeded with experiment No. 11. In so doing, they inadvertently mixed potassium chlorate with red phosphorus instead of with ferric oxide or manganese dioxide. They then applied a Bunsen burner and the mixture exploded causing the injuries to the plaintiff.
There was testimony that Dr. Johansen directed the students to obtain their equipment and set -up the apparatus, told them he had to leave the room but would return and inspect their apparatus and equipment, and directed them to wait until he had returned and made the inspection. Mrs. Anderson testified that she did not remember Dr. Johansen’s instruction not to proceed until he had checked the apparatus. The plaintiff testified to the same effect.
Harvey Howell, an instructor in chemistry at the East High School -in Salt Lake City, testified, over objection of counsel for the University, that in giving the course in Chemistry II at the High School he placed a large poster in the front of the classroom from which the students could carefully check their setup; that he insisted upon the setup being checked by him before the heat was applied; that he also used a direction sheet which stated “Check that setup. Get an okeh,” and that he never left the room during the laboratory period.
Elton L. Quinn, a professor of chemistry at the University of Utah, who had also taught at Princeton University and New Mexico State School of Mines, testified, over objection of counsel for the University, that in giving the course in Chemistry II, he always warned the class against the explosive danger, of mixing potassium chlorate and phosphorus, potassium chlorate and sulphur, and potassium chlorate and carbon; that he and his assistants, two or three in number, circulated among the class to see that they set up the apparatus as directed;' and that the laboratory was never open during the absence of instructors or supervisors.-
Neither Mr. Howell nor Mr. Quinn testified that it was the duty or practice of the professor to supervise the mixing of the materials.
Howell testified:
“As far as the mixing of the chemicals are concerned inside it would be absurd to think of my checking'that. I have to depend on the fact that they do pay attention to what is given them in the manual and what I have instructed them with regard to the course and their own good judgment.”
Quinn testified:
“It would be quite difficult to observe as to whether or not they were using or not' using the proper chemical materials as the student proceeds.”
Mrs. Anderson testified that Dr. Johansen had told them to read the instructions and had discussed the directions with them. The plaintiff testified that Dr. Johansen discussed the general directions with the students. Dr. Johansen testified that he told them to read the directions very thoroughly and often and to follow them carefully.
After plaintiff and her fellow students secured the materials and had set up the apparatus and had mixed the materials and were ready to apply the Bunsen burner, Mi's. Anderson was hesitant about applying the burner. She testified that one or both of the other girls urged her to go ahead. She then applied the burner and the explosion occurred.
The basis of negligence alleged in the complaint was the alleged failure of Dr. Johansen to warn against the dangers in mixing potassium chlorate with red phosphorus or other explosive materials and the alleged failure of Dr. Johansen to properly supervise the carrying out of the experiment.
At the close of all the evidence, the University moved the court for a directed verdict in its favor on the grounds that the University was a charitable institution and not liable for the negligence, if any, of Dr. Johansen; that the plaintiff had failed to prove any negligence on the part of Dr. Johansen that proximately caused the injury; that the injury was caused by the *845negligence of plaintiff and her fellow students; and that plaintiff and her fellow students were guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to her injury. The trial court denied the motion.
The court instructed the jury:
“ * * * that the usual practice in other universities in respect to this or similar experiments in respect to supervision may be considered by you in determining whether or not Dr. Johansen exercised due and reasonable care in this particular instance. Such practice would not be conclusive, but it is a matter under all the circumstances of the case that you may take into consideration.”
In answer to special interrogatories, the jury found that plaintiff and her fellow students negligently made the mistake of mixing the wrong chemicals, and that the mistake was the result of the failure of Dr. Johansen to supervise the students in the performing of experiment No. 11, and that plaintiff was not negligent in failing to observe and prevent the mixing of red phosphorus with potassium chlorate.
The jury returned a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The Unversity interposed a motion for judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied. From the judgment entered thereon, the University has appealed.
The evidence established that plaintiff was warned during the course in Chemistry I respecting the explosive hazard of potassium chlorate; that the directions respecting experiment No. 10 contained a specific warning against such danger, and that Dr. Johansen instructed the students to read the instructions carefully and thoroughly and to carefully follow them. It seems to me, therefore, that the case turns upon whether Dr. Johansen yras negligent in not supervising the experiment, and whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. The testimony adduced in behalf of plaintiff showed that it was the practice in two other institutions to check the setup before the student proceeded with the experiment, but that it was practically impossible to supervise and check the mixing of materials. The accident here was not caused by any error in the setting up of the apparatus, but was due, as the jury found, to a mistake in mixing the materials. The evidence adduced by plaintiff established that the instructor could not supervise the mixing of materials. A finding that supervision would have prevented the mistake in mixing materials would have been based on mere conjecture. I, therefore, conclude that if Dr. Johansen was negligent in failing to supervise the students, such negligence was not the proximate cause of the injuries to plaintiff.
It is also my opinion that the court erred in giving the quoted instruction. There was no evidence of the usual practice in other universities. Testimony as to the practice followed at the East High School and the University of Utah did not establish a customary or standardized practice in other universities.
Under the law of Utah, whether a charitable institution is exempt from liability for the negligent acts of its officers, employees, and servants depends upon whether the cost of the service which it renders so preponderates the charge made therefor as to justify the conclusion that it is performing a pure charity.
In Sessions v. Thomas Dee Memorial Hospital Ass’n, 89 Utah 222, 51 P.2d 229, 232, the court said:
“There are other cases where the character of the institution is a question for determination. When the character of the institution has been, from the evidence or from the pleadings if they are sufficient, determined to be charitable, then the rule of exemption from liability for tort of its servants and from taxes is generally' applied. * * *
“The fact that an- association is organized with or without capital stock is a matter of proof, and as such may weigh for or against its claimed charitable • character. So may the matter of whether the institution exacts payment for all patients, or only a part of them, or none of them. So may the manner and amount of profits or accumulations, if any, and the purposes and manner of distribution ór use thereof, whether the institution may be privately owned and the nature of that ownership and use, the activity engaged in — all are matters of evidence. The use or service to which the institution devotes its prqperty, and the ultimate ends to be attained, may be important for consideration. Thus, certain of the properties of an organization generally recognized as charitable may be devoted to the production of income or profit the same as a private corporation organized for profit. Such property may not *846be exempted from taxation because the purpose of the association or society is that of a charitable institution. What the evidence establishes characterizes the institution. Its character is for determination from the evidence by the court or by the jury under proper instruction by the court. * * *
“As was said in the case of Gitzhoffen v. Sisters of Holy Cross Hospital Ass’n [32 Utah 46, 88 P. 691, 695, 8 L.R.A.,N.S., 1161]:
“ ‘The fact that the corporation was formed for the purpose of maintaining and conducting hospitals for the treatment of the sick, wounded, and injured persons, and for the care of the infirm, is not controlling, for such things may be done for profit as well as for charity.’ * * *
“ ‘A charity is a gift to the general public use which extends to the rich as well as to the poor. The test of a charity and the test of a charitable organization are in law the same. The principal and distinctive features of a charitable organization are that it has no capital stock and no provision for making dividends or profits, but derives its funds mainly from public and private charity, and holds them in trust for the objects and purposes expressed in its charter.’ ”
On the second appeal of the case, Sessions v. Thomas D. Dee Memorial Hospital Ass’n, 94 Utah, 460, 78 P.2d 645, 650, it appeared that the Memorial Hospital in the year 1932 rendered charitable services amounting to $13,913.87 and its income was $171,814.38; that in the year 1933 it rendered charitable services amounting to $10,712.53 and its income was $172,018.30; that in the year 1934 it rendered charitable services amounting to $9,013.94 and its income was $201,059.07; that in the year 1935 it rendered charitable services amounting to $10,349.70 and its income was $207,467.49; that patients who were able to pay were charged standard rates; that the hospital derived a profit from its operations, but expended such profits for enlarging and improving its plant; and that plaintiff was received as a patient for pay at standard rates. The court held under those facts that the hospital was not immune from liability for the negligent acts of its servants, agents, and employees. In the opinion the court said:
“ ‘Once it is established, the institution, society, association, or corporation is char- ■ itable, and so, pursuing its purpose, the law of immunity seems to be settled. The question here submitted is: Does the contract for “pay” take the institution out of the protection of the rule, or, in so far as the contract for pay is concerned, make the institution a business institution not subject to the charitable immunity?’ * * *
“ ‘Whether or not that character attaches, it seems to us, is a matter of proof under all the circumstances of the case.’ * * *
“Put otherwise, where a contract involves an agreement to perform a service for compensation or pay, although the general purposes of the actor may be charitable, yet, in the particular instance the general character or purposes of the actor may not without more be invoked as a defense as a matter of law, whether pleaded in the complaint or by way of answer or defense. There are instances where a given agreement may partake so largely of compensatory or profit-taking elements as to remove the activity from the charitable field. Instances will readily occur, one of which may be where the services are critical but comparatively simple,' and a compensation beyond a reasonable one for either service, technical skill, or responsibility, and the profits are considerable yet not a gift. There are combinations where the contract for service so preponderates as to justify the conclusion that the actor was performing a pure charity.”
Here, the University was organized in 1896 as a nonprofit charitable corporation. It has no capital stock. Its articles of incorporation make no provision for profits and it derives no profits from its operations. Its funds are mainly derived from charitable gifts and it holds and uses them exclusively for charitable purposes. While it charges the student a tuition of $75 a year, its educational plant was established with charitable gifts, and of its operating cost per student $100 is derived from charitable gifts and only $75 from tuition. When consideration is given to these facts, I think it must be said that the cost and value of the educational service rendered so preponderate the tuition charge as to justify the conclusion that the actor is performing a pure charity, and is immune from liability for the negligence of its employees.
It is my opinion that the court erred in denying the motion for a directed verdict and for judgment, notwithstanding the verdict, and that the judgment below should *847be reversed, and I, therefore, respectfully dissent from the order denying the petition for rehearing.

 Hereinafter referred to as plaintiff.

 Hereinafter referred to as the University.