World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Charitable immunity

Article Id: WHEBN0014538771
Reproduction Date:

Title: Charitable immunity  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Captain of the ship doctrine, Conflict of laws in the United States, Tort
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Charitable immunity

Charitable immunity is a tort law. It originated in 19th-century Great Britain.[1][2]

History

The early form of charitable immunity in [3]

In Heriot's Hospital, plaintiff Ross brought an action against a charitable trust which had been established for a home for fatherless boys, contending that he had been excluded from the home even though he was fatherless and otherwise qualified for the charitable benefits. By the time his case was determined, Ross was too old for admission, and the question was whether he was entitled to damages from the trust funds. The House of Lords held that he was not. In the House of Lords, Lord Cottenham, in dictum, pronounced that an award of damages out of a trust fund "would not be to apply it to those objects which the author of the fund had in view, but would be to divert it to a completely different purpose". Heriot's Hospital was not a tort claim and did not address the issue whether a charity is liable to those whom it has wrongfully injured. Heriot's Hospital repeated an earlier dictum from Lord Cottenham in Duncan v. Findlater, 6 Cl. & Fin. 894 (1839), which decided, unremarkably, that highway trustees, under a public road act, were not liable for the negligence of independent contractors.

A blanket waiver from suit for charities did not exist anywhere at common law until it was adopted in England in 1861.[4] Moreover, the concept of immunity had no sooner crept into English law than it was decisively repudiated. By 1866, the dictum of Duncan v. Findlater (and by implication that of Heriot's Hospital) was overruled by Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, LR 1 HL 93, 11 Eng Rep 1500 (1866).[5]

Between the 1940s and 1992, almost every state in the United States had abrogated or limited the charitable immunity doctrine.[6][7] The doctrine has also been abandoned in Britain and Canada.[8]

Variations

The doctrine has especially been relevant, or discussed, in the context of child sexual abuse[1][8] and medical malpractice.[7]

Under the charitable immunity doctrine, it was still possible to sue employees or volunteers of charitable institutions, so the doctrine's existence encouraged other legal arguments, such as the "captain of the ship" argument that a surgeon is responsible for everything that happens in an operating room.[9]

References

  1. ^ a b Marci Hamilton (November 29, 2007). "How the Push for Religious Accommodation Can Go Too Far: Two Important Recent Examples". 
  2. ^ "Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada - Charitable Immunity". carters.ca. 
  3. ^ Feoffees of Heriot’s Hosp. V. Ross, 8 Eng Rep 1508 (1846) (discussed in Callopy v. Newark Eye & Ear Infirmary, 141 A.2d at 278).
  4. ^ See, Holliday v. St. Leonard, Shoreditch, 142 Eng Rep 769 (1861) (discussed in Callopy).
  5. ^ Georgetown College v. Hughes, 130 F.2d 810, 816-17 (1942) (discussing history of doctrine).
  6. ^ Jerold Oshinsky and Gheiza M. Dias (May 2002). "Liability of Not-for-profit organizations and Insurance Coverage for Related Liability". The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law 4 (2/3). 
  7. ^ a b Bradley C. Canon, Dean Jaros (Summer 1979). "The Impact of Changes in Judicial Doctrine: The Abrogation of Charitable Immunity". Law & Society Review 13 (4): 969–986.  
  8. ^ a b "Re Winding-up of the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada".  184 D.L.R. (4th) 445, Ontario Court of Appeal, Court File No. C29290, Doherty, Abella and Feldman JJ.A., Heard: April 14, 1999, Judgment rendered: April 10, 2000
  9. ^ Murphy EK (October 2001). ""Captain of the ship" doctrine continues to take on water". Aorn J. 74 (4): 525–8.  
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.