Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's
446 S.W.2d 599 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A nongovernmental charitable institution is liable for its own negligence and for the negligence of its agents and employees acting within the scope of their employment. The common law doctrine of charitable immunity is abolished in Missouri.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was a paying patient at a hospital operated by the defendant, a nonprofit charitable institution.
- A hospital employee, Marie Taylor, assisted the plaintiff from his bed to the bathroom.
- The employee then left the plaintiff unattended in the bathroom.
- The bathroom was not equipped with handrails for the plaintiff's support.
- Due to his weakened condition, the plaintiff fell to the bathroom floor.
- As a result of the fall, the plaintiff suffered multiple injuries, including a fractured leg.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant hospital and one of its employees in a Missouri trial court for negligence.
- The plaintiff subsequently dismissed the action against the employee without prejudice.
- The defendant hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was a charitable institution and thus immune from tort liability.
- The trial court sustained the motion and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendant hospital.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment.
- The case was argued before a Division of the Supreme Court of Missouri before being transferred on the court's own motion to be heard by the court en banc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of charitable immunity shield a nonprofit hospital from liability for the tortious acts of its employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Henley, C.J.
No. A nongovernmental charitable institution is liable for its own negligence and that of its employees. The court abolished the doctrine of charitable immunity, which was a court-made rule based on outdated public policy considerations. The original justifications for the doctrine, such as the 'trust fund' theory (protecting charitable assets from depletion) and the 'implied waiver' theory (that beneficiaries waive their right to sue), are fictions that are no longer persuasive. The court reasoned that modern charitable institutions are often large-scale operations, akin to businesses, and have access to liability insurance to cover potential tort claims, mitigating the risk of depleting their funds. Holding charities accountable promotes care and caution, aligning with the broader legal principle that there should be a remedy for every wrong and that all entities should stand equal before the law.
Concurring - Donnelly, J.
No. This specific defendant should be held liable based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case. However, the majority goes too far by completely abolishing the charitable immunity doctrine for all institutions in all situations. The better approach would be to consider each case on its own facts to determine whether a particular defendant is entitled to the benefit of charitable immunity, rather than implementing a blanket abolition of the long-standing doctrine.
Analysis:
This landmark decision completely reversed over sixty years of Missouri precedent by abrogating the doctrine of charitable immunity. It aligned Missouri with the overwhelming majority of states that had already abandoned the rule. The court's reasoning reflects a significant shift in judicial philosophy, prioritizing compensation for injured individuals over the protection of institutional assets, particularly in light of modern realities like liability insurance and the commercial scale of many charities. By making the ruling prospective, the court prevented a flood of litigation against charities for past torts, balancing the change in law with the reliance interests of institutions that had operated under the old rule.
Unlock the full brief for Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's