Maryland case law › Howard v. South Baltimore General Hospital

Howard v. South Baltimore General Hospital

191 Md. 617 (1948) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedHenderson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe plaintiff, a paying patient at South Baltimore General Hospital, sued the hospital corporation for personal injuries caused by the negligence of its servant.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a judgment for the defendant in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, after the court had sustained a demurrer to an amended declaration. The action was to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of negligence on the part of a servant of the hospital corporation, while the plaintiff was a paying patient therein. A second count sought to recover damages limited to a sum not greater than the defendant corporation would be able to pay out of surplus funds, income and property, as distinguished from endowment or maintenance funds.

The demurrer is based upon the conceded fact that the defendant is an eleemosynary corporation, and as such enjoys immunity from tort liability. The principle that charitable corporations are free from tort liability has long been a basic part of the law of this state. It was first established in Perry v. House of Refuge, 63 Md. 20 , 52 Am. Rep. 495 , and reaffirmed in Loeffler v. Trustees of Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hospital, 130 Md. 265 , 100 A. 301 , L. R. A. 1917D, 967.

The ap 619 pellant contends that those cases were wrongly decided, and are out of line with the modern trend, citing Mulliner v. Evangelischer Diakonniessenverein of Minnesota District of German Evangelical Synod of North America, 144 Minn. 392 , 175 N. W. 699 ; President and Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes, 76 U. S. App. D. C. 123, 130 F. 2d 810 , and other cases. He also contends that the Maryland doctrine was originally based upon a dictum of Lord Cottenham in Heriot’s Hospital v. Ross, 12 Clark & Fin. 507, and Duncan v. Findlater, 6 Clark & Fin. 894, which was subsequently overruled in Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, L. R. 1 H. L. 93, and Forman v. Mayor of Canterbury, L. R. 6 Q. B. 214. Whatever the merits of the argument as an original proposition, we are not warranted in overruling our prior decisions. There are special reasons why the doctrine of stare decisis should be adhered to in this case.

To withdraw immunity from this type of corporation

This is a preview of Howard v. South Baltimore General Hospital. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.