Johnson v. Wills Memorial Hospital & Nursing Home
343 S.E.2d 700, 178 Ga. App. 459, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1682 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard of care for a hospital's non-medical services, such as patient protection, is determined by the 'locality rule,' meaning the care exercised in similar hospitals in similar communities.
Facts:
- On January 2, 1979, Columbus Johnson was admitted to the appellee hospital complaining of stomach pains and weakness.
- On the evening of January 4, Johnson became highly agitated, ran down a hospital corridor yelling for help, and attempted to exit the building.
- Hospital staff, aided by sheriff's deputies, returned Johnson to his room, where a physician ordered a sedative to be administered intravenously.
- Due to Johnson's thrashing, a nurse was unable to properly administer the medication intravenously, with most of it being injected subcutaneously.
- An orderly was stationed in the corridor outside Johnson's room to ensure he remained there.
- At 2:40 a.m., the orderly discovered Johnson's room was empty, the window was open, and the screen had been cut.
- Approximately 8.5 hours later, Johnson was found deceased in the yard of a nearby residence.
- The diagnosed cause of death was overexposure to cold.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant Johnson filed a wrongful death suit against the appellee hospital in a Georgia trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for the defendant hospital.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the hospital based on the jury's verdict.
- Johnson filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Johnson, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should a hospital's non-medical services, such as patient protection, be judged against the standard of similar hospitals in similar communities (the 'locality rule') rather than a general standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Benham, J.
Yes, hospitals should be judged against similar local hospitals for non-medical services. The court distinguishes between a hospital's medical functions, for which a general standard of care applies, and its non-medical services or facilities. The protection of patients is considered a non-medical service, not a medical function. The ability of a hospital, particularly a smaller or rural one, to provide such services is limited by its location and resources. Therefore, it is appropriate to judge the hospital's conduct against the standard of care exercised in similar hospitals in similar communities. Since the plaintiff's claim involved allegations of both substandard nursing care (medical) and failure to protect (non-medical service), the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the locality rule as it pertained to the service-related claim.
Concurring - McMurray, P. J.
Concurs in the judgment only, without a written opinion explaining the reasoning.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the bifurcated standard of care for hospitals in Georgia. It preserves the 'locality rule' for claims involving a hospital's administrative or custodial services, such as patient safety and facility adequacy, even as the rule was being eroded for claims of professional medical negligence. This distinction is significant because it can make it more difficult for a plaintiff to prevail against a smaller or rural hospital on a non-medical negligence claim, as the hospital is judged against a potentially lower standard of similarly situated institutions rather than a general or national standard. The ruling solidifies the principle that a hospital's resources and location are relevant factors in assessing the reasonableness of its non-medical, but not its professional medical, conduct.
