to determine hospital’s charitable status, for purposes of tort liability, the court first examined the hospital’s articles of incorporation and bylaws as a matter of law, and when evidence was introduced that showed the hospital “did not observe the basic principles laid down in its” organizing documents, a matter of fact was raised to be determined by a factfinder
How later courts described this case
- to determine hospital’s charitable status, for purposes of tort liability, the court first examined the hospital’s articles of incorporation and bylaws as a matter of law, and when evidence was introduced that showed the hospital “did not observe the basic principles laid down in its” organizing documents, a matter of fact was raised to be determined by a factfinder
- concurring opinion of Grady, C.J.
- dealing with charitable immunity
- hospitals carry substantial insurance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Grady, C. J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion and the reasoning upon which it is based. I have usually been opposed to overruling cases in which we have declared a rule of law and such rule has been relied and acted upon for a long period of time. I have believed that if, for any reason, the rule should be changed, such change should be made by the legislature, especially if the rule be one relating to public policy. I expressed this view in my dissent in the recent case of Hutton v. Martin, 41 Wn. (2d) 780, 252 P. (2d) 581 . However, experience has demonstrated that, when immunity from liability is involved, legislatures are faced with strong opposition to change by those who are the beneficiaries of such rule, and proponents of a change find efforts to secure corrective legislation futile. When such a situation arises and the courts have become convinced that the rule should no longer exist, there is justification for action to be taken by them.
The phase of the immunity rule involved in this case has been in the situation I have referred to, and I am convinced it should be modified and this can be accomplished only by court action. My conclusion is based upon the view I have always entertained that, whenever a person undertakes the performance of some act or duty which if negligently done or performed might cause harm to another, there is imposed upon him the legal obligation to.exercise reasonable care in the doing or performing such act or duty, rather than by accepting as a sole guide the fact that, the *181 particular doctrine is meeting with criticism and some courts have accepted such trend of thought.