Question

In Flagiello v. Pennsylvania Hospital, the court had to balance the hospital's negligence against the charitable immunity doctrine to determine whether Flagiello could recover for injuries sustained on the hospital's property. The court determined that:
A. the charitable immunity doctrine was specifically and clearly written so they were bound to follow the clear intent of the statutory scheme and find for the hospital.

B. the charitable immunity doctrine had been litigated in the past and stare decisis required that the court adhereto established case precedent and find for the hospital.

C.current societal norms rendered the charitable immunity doctrine inapplicable to this case and that fundamental fairness allowed the court to deviate from established case precedent and find for Flagiello.

D. the charitable immunity doctrine can only be repealed or overturned by the state's legislature and that stare decisis required that case precedent be followed, however, due to the severity of Flagiello's injuries, the charitable immunity doctrine allowed for certain exceptions, permitting Flagiello to recover in this case.

Answer 1

Answer:

current societal norms rendered the charitable immunity doctrine inapplicable to this case and that fundamental fairness allowed the court to deviate from established case precedent and find for Flagiello.

Explanation:

In Appeals, Nos. 293 and 351, Jan. T., 1964, from judgments of Court of Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1963, No. 4018 is found a case of Mrs. C Mary, and her husband Thomas Flagiello against the Pennsylvania Hospital, in which the Flagiellos rightly stated that Mrs Mary was injured in the Pennsylvania Hospital where she paid $24.50 a day for hospital facilities and nursing care. An action of trespass was brought against the medical institution and two employees were said to be involved.

The hospital accepted their wrong doings but they should not be liable since they are an organization dependent on charity. After series of legal proceedings, the court finally affirmed that precedents would not be followed in the case and that charities, like the hospital, must be liable