Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitnegligenceliabilitytrialverdictcorporationnonprofitsustained

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencemotioncorporationnonprofitsustainedrespondentappellant

Related Cases

Ackerman v. Physicians and Surgeons Hosp., 207 Or. 646, 288 P.2d 1064

Facts

Dolores Ackerman brought a lawsuit against Physicians and Surgeons Hospital, claiming she sustained injuries due to the hospital's negligence while a patient there. The jury found in her favor, but the hospital moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing it was a charitable corporation and therefore immune from liability for employee negligence. The trial court agreed, stating that the evidence showed the hospital was organized as a nonprofit entity with no capital stock or profit distribution, and that it operated primarily for charitable purposes.

The plaintiff-appellant Dolores Ackerman brought an action against the defendant-respondent Physicians and Surgeons Hospital, an Oregon corporation (hereinafter called the hospital), for damages for injuries which she alleges were sustained as a result of respondent's negligence while she was a patient in the hospital.

Issue

Is the Physicians and Surgeons Hospital a charitable corporation, and if so, does it enjoy immunity from liability for the negligence of its employees?

Two questions are projected for consideration by the record. First, is the respondent corporation an eleemosynary corporation? Second, if so, does it enjoy immunity for acts of negligence of the kind here sued upon?

Rule

A charitable institution is not liable for injuries suffered by its patients due to the negligence of its employees, provided it is organized and operated as a charitable entity.

The overwhelming weight of authority is to the effect that a hospital association organized and conducting its business as a charitable institution is not liable for injuries suffered by its patients due to the negligence of its employees.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented regarding the hospital's operations and structure, concluding that it met the criteria for a charitable institution. The court noted that the hospital was incorporated as a nonprofit entity, had no capital stock, and did not distribute profits. The evidence indicated that the hospital's operations were consistent with charitable purposes, and the court found no substantial evidence to suggest otherwise.

The facts are these: The defendant hospital was incorporated as a charitable and nonprofit corporation as of July 1945 under the provisions of ORS 61.010 to 61.160.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the hospital was indeed a charitable institution and therefore not liable for the alleged negligence.

The motion for judgment n.o.v. was properly allowed.

Who won?

Physicians and Surgeons Hospital prevailed in the case because the court found that it was a charitable institution, which is not liable for the negligence of its employees.

The order which followed and the court's memorandum opinion hereinafter referred to reveal that the court was so persuaded in making its now challenged judgment.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Microsoft Corp. v. Franchise Tax Bd., 39 Cal.4th 750, 139 P.3d 1169, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 216, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7586, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,843

First Bank Stock Corp. v. State of Minnesota, 301 U.S. 234, 57 S.Ct. 677, 81 L.Ed. 1061, 113 A.L.R. 228

Besser Co. v. Bureau of Revenue, 74 N.M. 377, 394 P.2d 141, 1964 -NMSC- 169

Container Corp. of America v. Wagner, 293 Ill.App.3d 1089, 689 N.E.2d 259, 228 Ill.Dec. 387

American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. State Tax Appeal Bd., 241 Mont. 440, 787 P.2d 754