Birmingham Infirmary v. Coe

1. Hospitals &wkey;>7 — Improper placing of hot water bottle in patient’s bed is negligence. In an action against a hospital for personal injuries to plaintiff while being treated, the mere placing of a hot water bottle of 110° in his bed was not negligence, but there was negligence if the bottle was not so covered or placed, or the patient so guarded, as to prevent burning. 2. Appeal'and error &wkey;>!048(5) — Allowance of unanswered improper question not reversible error. The allowance of an improper question, if unanswered, being without prejudice, is not reversible error.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge. Action hy Edward Coe against the Birmingham Infirmary for damages for personal injuries while being treated. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The complaint charges that, while the. plaintiff was a pay patient in the defendant’s hospital and under his care, he was severely burned and injured by contact with a bottle as a result of the negligence of defendant’s servants, who were then engaged in their employment of caring for and attending plaintiff, which negligence consisted in negligently allowing said bottle to come in contact with the plaintiff. The evidence tended to show that plaintiff underwent an operation for appendicitis, and while still under the influence of ether was taken into a room, placed in a bed previously prepared for him, and committed to the care of the nurses in charge. It was shown without dispute that in major operations it is proper and usually necessary to apply external warmth to the patient, whose vitality is more or less enfeebled by the shock suffered, and that this was properly provided for in this instance by placing a bottle containing hot water in the patient’s bed, the temperature of which was 110 degrees Fahrenheit. It is further shown that hot water bottles at that temperature are capable of burning and injuring a patient more or less seriously, according to the point of application and the degree of the patient’s vital depression and lack of resistance. According to the testimony of the nurse in charge and of the head nurse, the rubber water bottle Was wrapped twice around with a towel, and, when the patient was placed in the bed', the bottle was placed about 18 inches from his lower body, which was usual and proper, and. that the nurse in charge remained in attendance about two hours until he came from under the influence of ether, and became conscious, when she left the room, in which were plaintiff’s wife and mother-in-law, and thereafter she was informed by one of them that he was burned by the bottle, which event the nurse testifies occurred only after she left the room. On the other hand, plaintiff and his relatives testify that, when he came from under the influence of 3ther, he complained that his leg was burning; that he complained of it several times to the nurse, who ignored it, and that after about 10 minutes, at plaintiff’s request, his mother-in-law examined him; and found his leg burned and blistered by the bottle, during all of which time the nurse was present. Among other things the court in its oral charge said to the jury: “It does not make any difference what the temperature was, if in fact it burned the plaintiff in this case; and the placing of the water in the bed of the plaintiff at that temperature, which did result in his burn, was an act of negligence on its part, whether it was 110 or 210 degrees.” The defendant excepted to the charge. Immediately following that statement, the trial judge further said: “Under all the evidence in this case, you are simply to decide, whatever the temperature of the water was, whether or not the defendant exercised the ordinary precautions demanded of them, at this time, in view of the condition of the patient, also keeping in view the generally approved customs and methods of other hospitals of like character.” The court refused the following charge requested by the defendant: “It was not negligence on the part of the defendant to place that hot water bottle, containing water heated at 110 degrees, in plaintiff’s bed, if properly protected.” The court erred in its oral charge, and in refusing the charges requested by the defendant. Counsel cite no authority in support of their contention. Counsel discuss the errors assigned, but cite no authority in support of their contention.