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a case such as this, and the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.”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...