MURRAY v. ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, N.Y. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Judges

Wenzel, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum:

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The action sought damages for the death of Rose M. Murray, who, while suffering from postpartum psychosis following childbirth, jumped from the window of a room at defendant St. Mary's Hospital. Immediately before the incident the patient's private physician and a special (private) nurse were in the room; at the doctor's direction the nurse left for a few minutes to make a telephone call requested by the patient, and the suicide occurred while the doctor either stood in the doorway or went into the hall with his back to the patient to ascertain whether the call had been made. The plaintiff produced evidence that the hospital knew, or should have known, of the decedent's mental disturbance. After the plaintiff rested, the trial court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for the defendant hospital. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment on law and facts and granted a new trial, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under the circumstances, the hospital owed a duty to use reasonable care to prevent its patient from injuring herself.
Whether the evidence presented a question of fact for the jury as to the hospital's negligence in failing to safeguard the patient.
Whether any negligence of the decedent's private physician precludes recovery or whether hospital negligence could be a concurrent proximate cause of death.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Santos v. Unity Hosp., 301 N.Y. 153	Support for the proposition that a hospital may have a duty to use reasonable care to prevent a patient from injuring herself.	Used to support the court's conclusion that the hospital was under such a duty under the circumstances disclosed.
Gries v. Long Is. Home Ltd., 274 App. Div. 938	Authority bearing on a hospital's duty to protect patients from self-harm.	Quoted by the court as a comparable authority establishing the hospital's duty to use reasonable care here.
Carlock v. Westchester Lighting Co., 268 N.Y. 345, 349	Principle that negligence of more than one actor may be concurrent proximate causes of an injury.	Cited to support the court's view that the private physician's possible negligence did not preclude finding the hospital's negligence to be a concurrent proximate cause.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the factual record detailing the patient's mental disturbance and the proximate circumstances of the suicide (doctor and private nurse present until minutes before, nurse sent out to make a call at the doctor's direction, doctor standing in doorway or hall with back to patient). It concluded there was ample proof the hospital knew or should have known of the decedent's mental disturbance. Applying the authorities cited, the court held that under these circumstances the hospital had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent the patient from injuring herself. The court found that a question of fact for the jury existed because the evidence showed the hospital, contrary to the physician's express instructions, did not inform him of the patient's condition and irrational behavior before the suicide and took no protective measures other than tucking in her bedclothes. Although the private physician's negligence may have contributed to the death, the court reasoned the jury could find his lack of knowledge caused him to omit precautions and that the hospital's failure to act was a concurrent proximate cause for which the hospital could be liable. The dissenting memorandum argued that because the physician and private nurse were in charge immediately before the act and no notice was given to hospital authorities, the hospital was not bound to anticipate their actions and the professionals should have summoned hospital staff if they intended to leave the patient unattended.

Holding and Implications

REVERSAL AND NEW TRIAL GRANTED. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment dismissing the complaint and ordered a new trial, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The direct effect is that the case will be retried on the question of the hospital's negligence and any concurrent liability. The opinion does not announce that it establishes a new precedent beyond applying existing authorities to the facts of this case.

Show full summary ...

FRANCIS D. MURRAY, as Administrator of the Estate of ROSE M. MURRAY, Deceased, Appellant, v. ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's intestate, who jumped from the window of a room of defendant hospital while suffering from postpartum psychosis following the delivery of a child. The patient's private physician and special nurse were in the room with her until a few minutes before the occurrence, when at the doctor's direction the nurse left to make a telephone call requested by the patient; and the suicide took place while the doctor either went into the hall or stood in the doorway with his back to the patient, to ascertain if the nurse had made the call. There was ample proof that defendant knew, or should have known, of decedent's mental disturbance. Judgment in favor of defendant hospital, entered upon a dismissal of the complaint at the close of plaintiff's case, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record, defendant hospital was under a duty to use reasonable care to prevent its patient from injuring herself. (Cf. Santos v. Unity Hosp., 301 N.Y. 153; Gries v. Long Is. Home Ltd., 274 App. Div. 938.) In our opinion, a question of fact for the jury as to said defendant's negligence was presented by the proof that it, contrary to the express instructions of intestate's physician, did not advise him of her condition and irrational behavior before the suicide, and by the proof that it took no measures whatsoever to safeguard the patient, other than to tuck in the bedclothes on her bed. While the negligence of decedent's private doctor may have contributed to her death, the jury could have found upon the evidence adduced that his lack of knowledge as to her actions and mental condition caused him to omit precautions that he otherwise might have taken; and that defendant hospital's negligence was a concurrent proximate cause of the occurrence for which it was liable in damages. (Cf. Carlock v. Westchester Lighting Co., 268 N.Y. 345, 349.)

Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Adel and Schmidt, JJ., concur;

Wenzel, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum:

The deceased's physician and her private nurse were present and in charge just before the irrational act which brought about her death. Under all the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, the doctor or the private nurse should have sent for a hospital nurse or attendant if they intended to leave the patient without surveillance by them for even a short period. No notice was given the hospital authorities of such actions on the part of experienced professionals, and they were not bound to anticipate them.

MURRAY v. ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL