Hospitals and the Law (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915. Excerpt: ... CHAPTER II EIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES In entering upon a discussion of the rights and responsibilities of hospitals we are met at the threshold by certain things which should properly have our consideration, though we shall need to pause only momentarily and can brush quickly by them. No intimate acquaintance with legal principles is necessary for one to know that where a person improperly disregards the safety of another's person or property, he is legally negligent; and if one actually undertakes to perform some service for another, it is his duty to use reasonable care in the execution thereof, as negligence in the discharge of such duty may subject him to legal liability. Ordinarily one is not held answerable for a mere omission. As Sir Frederick Pollock says, "Not that the consequences or the moral gravity of an omission are necessarily less. One who refrains from stirring to help another may be, according to the circumstances, a man of common, though no more than common good will and courage, a fool, a churl, a coward, or little better than a murderer. But unless he is under some specific duty of action, his omission will not in any case be either an offense or a civil wrong. Some already existing relation of duty must be established, which relation will be found in most cases, though not in all, to depend on foregoing voluntary act of the party held liable. He was not in the first instance bound to do anything at all, but by some independent motion of his own he has given hostages, so to speak, to the law."1 For the purpose of bringing this matter into clearer relief perhaps the setting out of an illustration will be of help. A physician or surgeon is under no legal obligation to render assistance to a person, notwithstanding the popular notion to...