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?
It was found that the hospital was responsible for the injury that occurred under the care of the hospital
According to common law, charity does grant the hospital immunity from many such cases. -
Mrs. Flagiello not only lost money that was spent on extra care, but also lost wages that could have been earned, not to mention the pain and immobility of a broken ankle. -
Yes. If the hospital workers had paid more attention and perhaps took greater pride in their job, this accident could probably have been avoided.
“An injury is a wrong; and for the redress of every wrong there is a remedy: a wrong is a violation of one’s right and for the vindication of every right there is a remedy.” (Parker v. 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a case such as this, and the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.”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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document