explaining that hospital rules and bylaws may be admissible but do not conclusively establish the standard of care
How later courts described this case
- explaining that hospital rules and bylaws may be admissible but do not conclusively establish the standard of care
- holding that the hospital's own bylaws may be used to establish the hospital's standard of care
- noting that a hospital's duty in negligence cases is always the same, to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in light of the apparent risk
- holding that hospitals may be held liable for institutional negligence
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Yamada v. Hilton Hotel Corp., 60 Ill. App. 3d 101 (1978)
The authorities cited by defendant, Flewellen v. Atkins (1968), 99 Ill. App. 2d 409, 241 N.E.2d 667; Drell v. American National Bank & Trust Co. (1965), 57 Ill. App. 2d 129, 207 N.E.2d 101; Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital (1964), 50 Ill. App. 2d 253, 200 N.E.2d 149, affd (1966), 33 Ill. 2d 326, 211 N.E.2d 253, are distinguishable in that they involve statements by counsel which admit a contested fac…
The opinion
Mr. Justice Underwood, specially concurring:
I concur in the decision in so far as it relates to the doctrine of charitable immunity only because I believe this result is compelled by Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District, 18 Ill.2d.11.