On April 12, 2023, the Honorable Philip M. Halpern issued an opinion and order in Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Vijay Soni, 23 Misc. 91, declining to enforce the same alleged “trial witness appearance order” as in the case before this Court, and declining to enforce a subpoena for respondent's testimony from the Southern District of New York, noting that the subpoena was invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(2) and (c)(1). On April 4, 2023, Petitioners alerted this Court that the Vijay Soni action was related to the instant case, noting that both actions sought to enforce the same order.
See notes 14 A.L.R. 572, 23 A.L.R. 923, 30 A.L.R. 455, 33 A.L.R. 1369, 42 A.L.R. 971, 109 A.L.R. 1199, 133 A.L.R. 821 and cases cited therein. See also Thornton v. Franklin Square House, 200 Mass. 465, 86 N.E. 909, 22 L.R.A., N.S., 486; Downes v. Harper Hospital, 101 Mich. 555, 60 N.W. 42, 25 L.R.A. 602, 45 Am.St.Rep. 427; Parks v. Northwestern University, 121 Ill. App. 512; Id., 218 Ill. 381, 75 N.E. 991, 2 L.R.A., N.S., 556, 4 Ann.Cas. 103; Joel v. Woman's Hospital in State of New York, 89 Hun 73, 35 N.Y.S. 37; Ward v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 23 Misc. 91, 50 N.Y.S. 466; Conner v. Sisters of Poor of St. Francis, 7 Ohio N.P. 514; Abston v. Waldon Academy, 118 Tenn. 24, 102 S.W. 351, 11 L.R.A., N.S., 1179; Adams v. University Hospital, 122 Mo.App. 675, 99 S.W. 453; Hearns v. Waterbury Hospital, 66 Conn. 98, 33 A. 595, 31 L.R.A. 224; Duncan, Adm'r v. Nebraska Sanitarium Benevolent Ass'n, 92 Neb. 162, 137 N.W. 1120, 41 L.R.A., N.S., 973, Ann.Cas.1913E, 1127; Weston's Adm'x v. Hospital of St. Vincent of Paul, 131 Va. 587, 107 S.E. 785, 23 A.L.R. 907; Roosen v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, 235 Mass. 66, 126 N.E. 392, 14 A.L.R. 563. For decisions in the Federal Courts see Paterlini v. Memorial Hospital Ass'n of Monongahela City, Pa., 3 Cir., 247 F. 639; Powers v. Massachusetts Homoeopathic Hospital, 1 Cir., 109 F. 294, 65 L.R.A. 372; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Artist, 8 Cir., 60 F. 365, 23 L.R.A. 581; Ettlinger v. Trustees of Randolph-Macon College, 4 Cir., 31 F.2d 869. And attention is particularly directed to the case of Bodenheimer v. Confederate Memorial A
In Gray v. Carter, 100 Cal.App.2d 642, 224 P.2d 28, the fact that the defendant had done no more than promise to provide regular nursing care to an aged patient, that is, had not contracted to furnish special nursing care at all times, was mentioned as one of the grounds for refusing to allow a recovery. In Ward v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 39 App. Div. 624, 57 NYS 784, reversing 23 Misc. 91, 50 NYS 466, it was held to be a breach of a contract to furnish a competent nurse when the patient was injured by the negligence of an untrained nurse. The contract issue was important, as the duty of the charitable hospital in that case was not to use due care in treatment, but only in the selection of nurses.
; Sibilia v. Paxton Memorial Hospital, 121 Neb. 860, 238 N.W. 751; Mikota v. Sisters of Mercy, 183 Iowa, 1378, 168 N.W. 219; Walsh v. Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent's Hospital, 47 Ohio App. 228, 191 N.E. 791; Wharton v. Warner, 75 Wn. 470, 135 Pac. 235; Tribble v. Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart, 137 Wn. 326, 242 P. 372; Thurston County Chapter, etc., v. Department of Labor, etc., 166 Wn. 488, 7 P.2d 577; Bise v. St. Luke's Hospital, 181 Wn. 269, 43 P.2d 4; Schumacher v. Evangelical Deaconess Soc., 218 Wis. 169, 260 N.W. 476; Parks v. Northwestern University, 218 Ill. 381, 75 N.E. 991, 4 Ann. Cas. 103, 2 L.R.A., N.S., 556; Powers v. Massachusetts Homoeopathic Hospital, 109 Fed. 294; Hearns v.Waterbury Hospital, 66 Conn. 98, 33 Atl. 595, 31 L.R.A. 224; Beverly Hospital v. Early, (Mass.) 197 N.E. 641, 100 A.L.R. 1338; Roosen v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, 235 Mass. 66, 126 N.E. 392, 14 A.L.R. 563; Downs v. Harper Hospital, 101 Mich. 555, 60 N.W. 42, 45 Am. St. 427, 25 L.R.A. 602; Ward v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 23 Misc. 91, 50 N. Y. Supp. 466; Eighmy v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 93 Iowa, 538, 61 N.W. 1056, 27 L.R.A. 296; Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Artist, 60 Fed. 365, 23 L.R.A. 581; Duncan v. Nebraska Sanitarium Benev. Assn., 92 Neb. 162, 137 N.W. 1120, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1127, 41 L.R.A., N.S., 973; Taylor v. Protestant Hospital Assn., 85 Ohio St. 90, 96 N.E. 1089, 39 L.R.A., N.S., 427; Gable v. Sisters of St. Francis, 227 Pa. 254, 75 Atl. 1087, 136 Am. St. 879; St. Vincent's Hospital v. Stine, 195 Ind. 350, 144 N.E. 537, 33 A.L.R. 1361; Bishop Randall Hospital v. Hartley, 24 Wyo. 408, 160 Pac. 385, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 1172; Lindler v. Columbia Hospital, 98 S.C. 25, 81 S.E. 512; Cook v. John N. Norton Memorial Infirmary, 180 Ky. 331, 202 S.W. 874, L.R.A. 1918E, 647; Loeffler v. Trustees of Sheppard Enoch Pratt Hospital, 130 Md. 265, 100 Atl. 301, L.R.A. 1917D, 967; Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 581, 52 L.R.A., N.S., 505; Hoke v. Glenn, 167 N.C. 594, 83 S.E. 807,
In support of the legal proposition, numerous authorities are cited by the appellant; and, though the proposition is not altogether undisputable, either on principle or authority, it may, for the purposes of the decision, be assumed to be correct. (Ward v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 50 N.Y. Supp. 466; 23 Misc. Rep. 91; Hearns v. Waterbury Hospital, 66 Conn. 98; McDonald v. Mass. Gen. Hospital, 120 Mass. 432;Downes v. Harper Hospital, 101 Mich. 555;Joel v. Woman's Hospital, 35 N Y Supp. 37; 89 Hun, 73; Harris v. Woman's Hospital, 14 N.Y. Supp. 881; Van Tassel v. Manhattan etc. Hospital, 15 N.Y. Supp. 620; Haas v. Missionary Society etc., 26 N.Y. Supp. 868; 6 Misc Rep. 281; Fire Ins. Patrol v. Boyd, 120 Pa. St. 624.) We have, therefore, to consider only the question as to the alleged charitable character of the society.
Upon the trial of this case the court directed a verdict in favor of defendant and thereafter denied a motion to set aside such verdict and for a new trial. 23 Misc. 91. The trial court held that the action was in tort and not upon contract and that the hospital was only liable for negligence in the original selection of its servants and, having fulfilled that duty, was not liable for the subsequent act of such servant unless knowledge of her unfitness had been brought home to the corporation, and that this rule was applicable to all patients whether they paid or not.