Flagiello V. Pennsylvania Hospital Case Study
Flagiello Case Brief
Type of Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Facts of the Case
- Mrs. Flagiello was injured due to negligence while staying at the hospital
- Mrs. Flagiello and her husband want compensation for time spent in hospital, loss of potential earnings, and added medical expense
- Hospital was a charitable organization
Legal Issues in the Case
- Does charity grant the hospital immunity from such cases?
- What was lost during the extra time spent in the hospital?
- Was the extra harm caused by neglect?
Judgment
- It was found that the hospital was responsible for the injury that occurred under the care of the hospital
Holding
- According to common law, charity does grant the hospital immunity from many such …show more content…
Griswold, Connecticut)
- “The old rule of charitable immunity was justified in its time on its own facts. Today we have a new set of facts.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
- “It is our conclusion that there is today no factual justification for immunity in a case such as this, and the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
- In 1910, two-thirds of the hospital space was made up of charity patients and 60% of the income was from charity. In 1963, the fees from paying patients constituted 90.92% of the income. (Gable v. Sisters of St. Francis, Pennsylvania)
- Justice Paxson said that the charitable immunity rule “is hoary with antiquity and prevails alike in this country and in England.” (Fire Insurance Patrol v. Boyd, Pennsylvania)
- “a charitable institution is not responsible for its torts” (McDonald v. Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts)
- “the charity immunity doctrine was built on a foundation of sand” (Georgetown College v. Hughes,
Type of Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Facts of the Case
- Mrs. Flagiello was injured due to negligence while staying at the hospital
- Mrs. Flagiello and her husband want compensation for time spent in hospital, loss of potential earnings, and added medical expense
- Hospital was a charitable organization
Legal Issues in the Case
- Does charity grant the hospital immunity from such cases?
- What was lost during the extra time spent in the hospital?
- Was the extra harm caused by neglect?
Judgment
- It was found that the hospital was responsible for the injury that occurred under the care of the hospital
Holding
- According to common law, charity does grant the hospital immunity from many such …show more content…
Griswold, Connecticut)
- “The old rule of charitable immunity was justified in its time on its own facts. Today we have a new set of facts.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
- “It is our conclusion that there is today no factual justification for immunity in a case such as this, and the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
- In 1910, two-thirds of the hospital space was made up of charity patients and 60% of the income was from charity. In 1963, the fees from paying patients constituted 90.92% of the income. (Gable v. Sisters of St. Francis, Pennsylvania)
- Justice Paxson said that the charitable immunity rule “is hoary with antiquity and prevails alike in this country and in England.” (Fire Insurance Patrol v. Boyd, Pennsylvania)
- “a charitable institution is not responsible for its torts” (McDonald v. Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts)
- “the charity immunity doctrine was built on a foundation of sand” (Georgetown College v. Hughes,