Unser v. Baptist Rescue Mission

5 Citing cases

  1. Rhodes et al. v. Millsaps College

    179 Miss. 596 (Miss. 1937)   Cited 8 times

    Then in the case of Bougon v. Volunteers of America, 151 So. 797, the court said: "Trust fund doctrine of non-liability of charitable organizations for torts of employees, as to persons not recipients of its charity, does not obtain in Louisiana, and hence charitable organization is liable for injuries sustained by pedestrians when struck by its truck driven by employees." Unser v. Baptist Rescue Mission, 157 So. 298. In 1930 in the case of Duvelius v. Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati, 174 N.E. 256, 37 Ohio App. 171, 173 N.E. 737, 123 Ohio State 52, the Ohio courts affirmed liability to one who was not a beneficiary of the charity

  2. Heirs of Fruge v. Blood Services

    365 F. Supp. 1344 (W.D. La. 1973)   Cited 7 times

    In fact, both paying and nonpaying recipients of services from charitable organizations have been denied recovery against the charity. Jordan v. Touro Infirmary, supra; Unser v. Baptist Rescue Mission, 157 So. 298 (La.App.Orl. Cir. 1934); Messina v. Societe Francaise de Bienfaissance, 170 So. 801 (La.App.Orl. Cir. 1936); 15 Am.Jur.2d, Charities, § 166 (1964). We find that Mrs. Fruge was a recipient of the benefits rendered by Blood Services, and that it is a charitable institution immune from an action in tort under LSA-C.C. 2315.

  3. Meyers v. Southwest Region Conference Ass'n of Seventh Day Adventists

    230 La. 310 (La. 1956)   Cited 20 times
    In Meyers v. Southwest Region Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, 88 So.2d 381 (La. 1956), the court held a church to be a business within the meaning of the worker's compensation statute for the purpose of an injured employee receiving benefits.

    These rulings, of course, have no pertinence here in Louisiana, or in the majority of the states, where it is well settled that charitable corporations are not exempt from responsibility for personal injuries to third persons and servants under the "Trust Fund Doctrine". See 10 Am. Jur. Verbo "Charities" Sections 153 and 154; Bougon v. Volunteers of America, La.App., 151 So. 797; Unser v. Baptist Rescue Mission, La.App., 157 So. 298 and Lusk v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co., La.App., 199 So. 666. Since we are of the opinion that the church corporation conducts a business within the meaning of the Act, we next consider defendants' contention that its operations are not hazardous and, further, that plaintiff's employment is likewise not hazardous.

  4. Blatt v. Geo. H. Nettleton Home for Aged Women

    275 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. 1955)   Cited 7 times
    Establishing an exception for commercial operations

    .E.2d 898; Lovich v. Salvation Army, Inc., 81 Ohio App. 317, 75 N.E.2d 459; Edwards v. Hollywood Canteen, 27 Cal.2d 802, 167 P.2d 729; Necolayff v. Genesee Hospital, 61 N.Y.S.2d 832, 270 A.D. 648; Rickbeil v. Grafton Deaconess Hospital, 74 N.D. 525, 23 N.W.2d 247; Lichty v. Carbon County Agr. Assn., 31 F. Supp. 809; England v. Hospital of the Good Samaritan, 14 Cal.2d 791, 97 P.2d 813; Humphreys v. San Francisco Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, 22 Cal.2d 436, 129 P.2d 118, 139 P.2d 941; Lusk v. United States Fidelity Guar. Co., 199 So. 666; Kolb v. Monmouth Memorial Hospital, 116 N.J.L. 118, 182 A. 822; Cullen v. Schmit, 139 Ohio St. 194, 39 N.E.2d 146; Gable v. Salvation Army, 186 Okla. 687, 100 P.2d 244; Southern Methodist University v. Clayton, 142 Tex. 179, 176 S.W.2d 749; Kalinowski v. Young Women's Christian Assn., 17 Wn.2d 380, 135 P.2d 852; Nicholson v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 145 Fla. 360, 199 So. 344; Alabama Baptist Hospital Board v. Carter, 226 Ala. 114, 145 So. 443; Unser v. Baptist Rescue Mission, 157 So. 298; Reavey v. Guild of St. Agnes, 284 Mass. 300, 187 N.E. 557; Wright v. Salvation Army, 125 Neb. 216, 249 N.W. 549; Simmons v. Wiley Methodist Episcopal Church, 112 N.J.L. 129, 170 A. 237. (3) It is against the public policy of this state as expressed in its Constitution to afford any charity immunity from liability for negligence. Harke v. Hasse, 354 Mo. 1104, 75 S.W.2d 1001; Noel v. Menninger Foundation, 267 P.2d 934, 175 Kan. 751; Nicholson v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 145 Fla. 360, 199 So. 344, 133 A.L.R. 809; Sec. 14, Art. I, Constitution of Mo., 1945. Clay C. Rogers and James W. Benjamin for respondent; Rogers, Field Gentry of counsel.

  5. Andrews v. Y.M.C.A

    226 Iowa 374 (Iowa 1939)   Cited 28 times

    The court said: "But there is no case in Louisiana which has extended the doctrine of the Jordan case [Jordan v. Touro Infirmary, La. App., 123 So. 726], so as to grant immunity to charitable corporations for the torts of their employees causing injuries to third persons, and, while there are a number of other jurisdictions in which the 'Trust Fund Doctrine' has been so extended, the clear weight of authority elsewhere is to the contrary. * * * 5 R.C.L. pp. 377, 379." In Unser v. Baptist Rescue Mission, 1934, 157 So. 298, the Louisiana court of appeal followed the decision in the Bougon case. In New Jersey, the court of common pleas, in Daniels v. Rahway Hospital et al., 1932, 160 A. 644, 10 N.J. Misc. 585, after stating that the liability of a charitable institution for its negligence to a stranger had "never been squarely decided by any reported case in this state", held that such a defense was not available as against a stranger injured by the negligence of the operator of defendant's ambulance on the highway.