Mulrennan v Board of Public Health of the County of Offaly

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1930
• Date: 01 January 1930
• Court: Supreme Court (Irish Free State)

Mulrennan v. Offaly Board of Health

MARY MULRENNAN

Plaintiff

and

THE BOARD OF PUBLIC HEALTH OF THE COUNTY OF OFFALY,Defendants (1)

Supreme Court.

Negligence - Board of Health - County Hospital - Injury to patient - Payment made by patient for treatment - Liability of Board of Health - Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 9 of 1923),sects. 2, 5, Sch. I.

The defendants, the Offaly County Board of Health, a statutory body whose existence was legalised by the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, carried out their duties under a Scheme as sanctioned by that Act and subsequently modified by the "Offaly County Scheme Order, 1923," which was made by the Minister for Local Government under the powers conferred on him by the Act. In pursuance of the said Scheme, the defendants maintained a County Hospital, to which the plaintiff was admitted, and where she underwent an operation. The plaintiff was admitted to the hospital upon the terms that her father would pay the defendants 4s. per day for the treatment therein; and, in admitting her as a patient, the defendants acted in pursuance of Art. 15 (iv) of the said Scheme. After the operation the plaintiff was burnt by a hot-water jar, which, she alleged, had been placed in her bed by another patient, and she sued the defendants for damages. The action was tried by the Circuit Court Judge with a jury, and the jury found that the defendants contracted to care and maintain the plaintiff; that the defendants were guilty of negligence or breach of duty in the care and maintenance of the plaintiff; and, in answer to the question whether the negligence was that of some of the defendants' employees, answered: "Through insufficient staff." They assessed damages at £60, and a decree was given for that amount. On appeal, the decree was affirmed, but liberty was given to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Held by the Supreme Court (Kennedy C.J. and Murnaghan J.; FitzGibbon J. dissenting) that once the defendants went outside the statutes relating to the relief of the poor, and proceeded to contract with paying patients, they were bound by the ordinary law of contract; and, having regard to the findings of the jury, which there was evidence to sustain, the decree must be affirmed.

Brennan, v. Guardians of Limerick Union, 2 L.R. Ir. 42, and Dunbar v.Guardians of Ardee Union, [1897] 2 I.R. 76, distinguished.

Appeal from an order made by two of the Commissioners appointed pursuant to the Circuit Court Appeals Act (No. 10 of 1927), to hear appeals from the circuit Court (2).

The plaintiff's civil bill was as follows:—

"1. The defendants are the statutory body responsible for the management of the County Hospital, Tullamore, and for the maintenance and treatment of patients therein.

2. On or about the 13th day of November, 1925, the plaintiff was admitted as a patient to the said hospital, and the defendants undertook with the plaintiff for her proper care, maintenance, and treatment therein.

3. On the 13th day of November, 1925, the plaintiff was operated on in said hospital for appendicitis. After the operation, and while the plaintiff was still under the influence of the anæsthetic, the defendants' servants and agents so negligently and unskilfully treated and cared for the plaintiff as to place, or permit to be placed, a hot jar to the plaintiff's feet, whereby the plaintiff was severely burned, and suffered serious and permanent personal injuries.

4. By reason of the foregoing the plaintiff has suffered serious loss and damage, and claims £300 damages in respect of the said breach of duty, breach of contract, and negligence and unskilfulness of the defendants, their servants, and agents."

The civil bill was heard by the Circuit Court Judge of Offaly, sitting with a jury, and the plaintiff was awarded £60 damages. The defendants appealed, but the decree was affirmed by the two Commissioners who heard the appeal. They, however, gave the defendants leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the defendants appealed to that Court accordingly.

The facts have been summarised in the head-note, and are fully stated in the judgment of Kennedy C.J.

Cur. adv. vult.

Kennedy C.J.:—

The judgment which I am about to read is the joint judgment of Mr. Justice Murnaghan and myself.

This is an appeal taken by the Offaly County Board of Health by leave of the Special Commissioners from their decision, dated the 29th July, 1927, affirming the decree for £60 made by the Circuit Judge of Offaly after a trial of the action with a jury.

The plaintiff, who is under age, sues by her father, Patrick Mulrennan, as next friend. She required to be operated upon for appendicitis, and her father went with her to the Central Hospital, under the defendants' control, and made arrangements for his daughter's admission. He was asked to pay 6s. per day, but it was finally agreed that he should pay 4s. per day. The plaintiff was operated upon on the 13th November, 1925—six days after admission—and the operation was quite successful. In the morning following the operation the plaintiff felt a severe pain in her right foot. A hot jar, which had keen placed in the bed, had come in contact with the plaintiff, who was still suffering from the effects of an anæsthetic, at some time on the previous day or previous night. The burning caused severe pain, and it took a considerable time to heal. There is no objection taken to the amount of damages awarded, if liability on the part of the defendants is established.

The jury found in answer to the questions submitted to them that the defendants contracted to care and maintain the plaintiff, and that the defendants were guilty of negligence or breach of duty in the care and maintenance of the plaintiff. In answer to Question 3:—"If so [i.e., if the defendants were guilty of negligence or breach of duty in the care and maintenance of the plaintiff], was the negligence that of some of their employees?"the jury answered, "Through insufficient staff."From the facts given in evidence, and from the charge of the learned Circuit Judge, it is clear that by their answer to the third question the jury found...