# Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 22, 1965 · 417 Pa. 486

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749964

## Case

- **Full name:** Flagiello, Appellant, v. Pennsylvania Hospital
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 22, 1965
- **Citations:** 417 Pa. 486; 208 A.2d 193; 1965 Pa. LEXIS 442
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Jones
- **Judges:** Bell, Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 130 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749964

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating when rule offends against reason, courts not only possess inherent authority to repudiate rule, but are required to do so
- discussing the growth of the charitable immunity doctrine in the United States

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones:
For over three-quarters of a century this Court has constantly adhered to the doctrine which rendered charitable institutions immune from tort liability. Today, by divided vote, this Court abolishes this doctrine.
It may well be that the time has come to reevaluate and reexamine the reasons which motivated the creation of this doctrine and to determine, under present day conditions, the justification, if any, for the continuance of the doctrine. However, although fully cognizant that this doctrine is “judge made” law created by judicial, not legislative, fiat, in my opinion, this doctrine has become part of the public policy of this Commonwealth, a public policy which, if it is to be changed, should be effected by legislative action. The abolition of the “charitable immunity” doctrine will affect adversely and seriously all 1 charitable institutions throughout the Commonwealth and the impact of such extinction is a matter of grave public concern. Under such circumstances, I believe that the legislature and not this Court should act in this area.
It is a matter of concern that from the majority opinion an implication arises that the doctrine is abolished only as to hospitals when sued by patients who paid for the hospital services. If the doctrine is to be abolished, reason and common sense dictate that the doctrine should be abolished as to all charitable institutions regardless of whether the service rendered by such institutions was paid for or not.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749964. Public record. Not legal advice.