Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc · 1969 · Torts

446 S.W.2d 599 (1969)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsCharitable immunityhospital liabilitynonprofit hospitalnegligencevicarious liabilitypublic policyprospective overruling

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that while he was a paying patient in defendant hospital, a hospital employee assisted him from his bed to the bathroom and then left him unattended. Plaintiff alleged that because of his weakened condition he fell to the bathroom floor and suffered multiple injuries, including a fractured right leg. He claimed the hospital was negligent in failing to provide handrails and in failing to furnish a nurse or attendant to remain with and assist him. The hospital moved for summary judgment, asserting that as a benevolent, religious, nonprofit charitable institution it was immune from tort liability.

Issue

Should Missouri continue to adhere to the doctrine that a charitable institution is immune from liability for the tortious acts of its agents and employees? If not, should the change be made by the court and how should it apply in time?

Rule

Missouri abolishes the doctrine of charitable immunity. A nongovernmental charitable institution is liable for its own negligence and for the negligence of its agents and employees acting within the scope of their employment. The new rule applies to this case and to future causes of action arising after November 10, 1969.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In December 1969, Lena Ortiz was a patient at River Chapel Medical Center, a nonprofit religious hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. An orderly employed by the hospital dropped her while transferring her from a wheelchair to a bed during his shift, and she sued the hospital for negligence.

The hospital argues that because it is a charitable, nonprofit institution, it cannot be held liable for torts committed by its employees. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority abolished charitable immunity for nongovernmental charitable institutions and held they are liable for their own negligence and for the negligence of their agents and employees acting within the scope of employment. The opinion also rejected distinctions based on payment status and made insurance irrelevant to whether liability exists.