Cowans v. North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Rabon v. Rowan Memorial Hospital Incorporated (N.C. 1967)
- Williams Ex Rel. Williams v. Randolph Hospital, Inc. (N.C. 1953)
- Silva v. Providence Hospital of Oakland (Cal. 1939)
- Darsie v. Duke University (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)
- Helms v. Williams (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
- Quick v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc. (N.C. 1967)
- Mabel W. Hitchings v. Albemarle Hospital (4th Cir. 1955)
- Williams Ex Rel. Williams v. Union County Hospital Ass'n (N.C. 1951)
- Durney v. St. Francis Hospital, Inc. (Superior Court of Delaware 1951)
- Herndon v. . Massey (N.C. 1940)
- Andrews v. Y.M.C.A. (Iowa 1939)
- Andrews v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n (Iowa 1939)
- Cohen v. General Hospital Society (Conn. 1931)
- President & Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes (D.C. Cir. 1942)
- Cranfield v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 1931)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The chief question presented by the appeal is whether a charitable hospital, operated not for gain, but for benevolent purposes, can be held liable in damages for the negligent injury to a servant or employee. We think so. 5 R. C. L., 378; McInerny v. St. Lake’s Hosp. Asso. (1913) (Minn.), 46 L. R. A. (N. S.), 548; Bruce v. Central M. E. Church (1907), 10 L. R. A. (N. S.), 74, 11 Ann. Cas., 150 (Mich.); Hewett v. Women’s Hosp. Aid Asso. (1906), 7 L. R. A. (N. S.), 496, 64 Atl., 190 (N. H.); Hordern v. Salvation Army (1910), 32 L. R. A. (N. S.), 62, 93 N. E., 626.
Plaintiff was a servant or employee of the defendant, and not a beneficiary of its charity. This distinguishes the case from Green v. *42 Biggs, 167 N. C., 417, 83 S. E., 553, and Hoke v. Glenn, 167 N. C., 594, 83 S. E., 807, where it was held that an eleemosynary institution or a charitable hospital was not liable to a patient for the tort of its servants or agents, when due care was exercised in the selection or retention of said servants or agents, and no duty was undertaken requiring the exercise of special art or skill. See, also, Johnson v. Hospital, 196 N. C., 610.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.