Court Opinion

ID: 9528975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:45:50.705199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:33.905032
License: Public Domain

Fromme, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. The order of the trial judge in directing a verdict in favor of both defendants was eminently correct. The rules which this court laid down in Goheen v. Graber, 181 Kan. 107, 309 P. 2d 636, and Collins v. Meeker, 198 Kan. 390, 424 P. 2d 488, should be followed and if so the case would be affirmed on appeal.
The record is entirely void of any testimony as to the measure of duty of the hospitals in the community as to the exercise of care, skill and diligence in the treatment of a patient such as the plaintiff. With no yardstick as to what is proper care a jury would be totally unrestrained in its determination of negligence. From the evidence presented neither a jury nor this court can reasonably say the hospital and nurses failed to do a single thing required of them in measuring up to community standards. A condition of pain and apprehension is common in all hospitals. Some patients have a lower level of pain tolerance than others. Every 'patient’s demands may not be in his best interests. How then can a jury or this court say that the hospital is negligent in this case. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in its entirety.
Kaul, J., joins in the foregoing concurrence and dissent.