895

Birmingham City Infectious Diseases Hospitals, Little Bromwich.—3rd Asst. M.O. 350.

Bolingbroke Hospital, ITTandsworth Commcn, S.W.—Hon. Phys.Brighton, Royal Sussex County Hospital.-Cas. H.S. £120.Bristol General Hospital.—Pathologist and Curator of the

Museum. £500.Bristol Royal Infirmary.—Hon. Surg. in charge of Ear, Nose and

Throat Dept.Burnley, Victoria Hospital.-H.S. £125.Cardiff, Glan Ely Hospital.-Two Res. M.O.’s. R350 and £200

respectively.Carlisle, Cumberland and Westmorland Mental Hospital.-Med.

Supt. £850.Central London Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, Gray’s Inn-road,

W.C.—2nd Res. H.S. At rate of S75.Chelmsford Administrative County of Essex.-Two Asst. County

M.O.H.’s. Each £600.Colindale Hospital, Hendon, N.W.—Jun. Asst. M.O. 500.Exeter, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital.-Asst. H.S. At rate of

£100.Fiji Government.-Dist. M.O. 500.Glasgow, Woodilee Alental Hospital, Lenzie.-Jun. Asst. M.O.

.8300.Golden-square Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, W.-H.S. £100.Hellingly, Sussex, East Sussex County Mental Hospital.—Locum

Tenens M.O. Seven guineas weekly.Hong Kong, University Faculty of Medicine.-Professor of

Physiology. £800.Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond-street, W.C.—Med.

Reg. and Pathologist. £300.Hull Royal Infirmary.—Asst. H.P. At rate of 130.Leeds Public Dispensary.,-Hon. P. and Hon. S.L.C.C. Mental Hospitals Service.—8th Asst. M.O. £300.Prince of Wales’s General Hospital, Tottenham, N.—Clin. Asst.Rotherham Hospital.—H.P. £180.Royal Chest Hospital, City-road, E.C.-H.P. At rate of £100.Royal Free Hospital, Gray’s Inn-road, TV.C.-Asst. Phys. Also

Ophth. Surg.Royal Naval Medical Service.-Surg.-Lieutenants. £453.St. Bartholomew’s Hospital.-Asst. P. to Children’s Dept.St. Peter’s Hospital for Stone, Henrietta-street, Covent Garden,

W.C.-3rd Anesthetist. At rate of 25.Singapore Municipality, Straits Settlements.-Asst. Municipal

Health 0.$8.400.Stafford, Staffordshire General Infirmary.—H.S. At rate of .8200.Stoke Newington IVletropolitan Bornugh.-Part-time M.O.H. £700.Stoke-on-Trent, North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary, Hartshill.

Hon. Anaesthetist, Hon. Asst. Aural S., and Hon. Asst.Orthop. S.

Sudan Medical Service.-M.O. £E720.Walsall General Hospital.-Sen. H.S. At rate of £200.West Ham County Borough, Dagenham Sanato?,ium.-Asst. Res.

M.O.Windsor, King Edward VII. Hospital.-Hon. Asst. P.Woolwich and District War Memorial Hospital, Shooters Hill,

S.E.-H.S. 120.York County Hospital.-H.S. £150.York Dispensary.-Res. M.O. £150.The Chief Inspector of Factories announces a vacant appoint-

ment for a Certifying Factory Surgeon at Carnwath(Lanarkshire).

_______________

Births, Marriages, and Deaths.BIRTHS.

VAUGHAN.—On April 22nd, at Cromer, the wife of Dr. D.Vaughan, of a daughter.

MARRIAGES.

Hanover-square, W., Walter Harvey Gervis, F.R.C.S., toSibyl Adelaide Rowsell, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Walter A.Chadwick, of Croydon.

PARSONS—LAING.—On April Hth, at St. James’ Church, Sussex-gardens, London, Henry Frank Parsons, M.R.C.S., toMargaret Josephine Laing, daughter of the late Lieut.-Colonel Laing, and of Mrs. Laing, Stoke Bishop, Bristol.

RORER EVANS—HORNE.—On April 17th, at Holy TrinityChurch, Folkestone, Hugh Roker Evans, M.D., B.S., toWinifred Mary Zoffany, younger daughter of the late Mr RN. Kensey Horne, of Tasmania, and Mrs. Horne of Bouverie-c-quare, Folkestone.

DEATHS.ATKINS.—On April HltJ1, at uatnay, Alumhurst-road, Bourne-

mouth, Francis Thomas Atkins, M.R.C.S., aged 77.HARBORD.—On April 19th, Edward Augustus Harbord, L.R.C.P.,

M.R.C.S., of Fairfax-road, N.W.6, in his 71st year.KIRKWOOD.—On April 22nd, at Wrentham-avenue, N.W.,

John Kirkwood, M.B., C.M., aged 54 years.NORMAN.—On April 18th, at Brecon House, Wantage, Berks,

Thomas Norman, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., aged 45.TANGER.—On April 17th, at his son’s residence, Ruardean,

Glos.. William Stanger, F.R.C.S. Eng., J.P., in his 84th year.N.B.—A fee of 7s. Gd. is charged for the insertion of Notices of

Births, Marriages, and Deaths.

IN correction of a statement made by Dr. H. Hilliard inTHE LANCET of last week (p. 793) Mr. Frank Colemanwrites that it was his father, Mr. Alfred Coleman, and nothimself who, jointly with Dr. Hilliard, introduced the nasamethod of administering nitrous oxide.

Notes, Comments, and Abstracts.HOSPITAL LAW.

LIABILITY OF HOSPITALS AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL

STAFFS FOR TORTS.

BY CAPTAIN J. E. STONE, M.C., F.S.A.A.,HON. SECRETARY, INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF HOSPITAL

OFFICERS.

THE wrongs for which individuals seek redress consistof two main classes, those which result from a breach ofcontract, and those which arise from negligence or fromwrongs committed, such being generally known as torts.A breach of contract consists in failing to do something thatone has agreed to do, or in doing something that one hasagreed not to do. A tort consists in doing something tothe prejuduce of another which one ought not to do, ordoing some rightful act but in a negligent or wrongfulmanner, time, or place, or by failing to do what ought tobe done, thereby causing suffering or injury to another.

Contracts are quite definite in form when they are writtenand specifically indicate what is or is not to be done. Failureto live up to a written contract is quite easily determinedand in general this is equally true with regard to certainforms of implied contracts which are not so definite as writtencontracts. In the case of torts there is considerableindefiniteness. When is a man injured in his property,person or rights ? How much is he injured ? Is the personcausing the injury chargeable with negligence ? What isnegligence ? All these are practical questions that arise ineach individual case. The tendency of the law of tortsis to give the plaintiff relief only if the defendant wasculpable in some way. It must be proved that the defendantintended to damage the plaintiff, or that he might haveavoided damaging him by using the proper amount of care,or that he was engaged in an unlawful act at the time theplaintiff suffered the injury. The standard of care requiredis that of ordinary prudence.

Contracts v. Torts.There are, therefore, two phases of the question which

require to be considered-liability for contracts and liabilityfor torts. It may be said that, generally speaking, in themanner of contracts the hospital is liable for the acts of its.authorised agents. If an officer-of a hospital acting underauthority engages or contracts to do anything, it is clearthat the hospital is liable for damages caused by the failureto perform its part of the contract. If the officer proceededwithout authority he would himself be liable. It is not aninterference with the rights of charitable institutions tocompel the authorities thereof to fulfil obligations freely andlawfully entered into.The difference between actions based on contract and

actions in respect of torts must be noted. If it can beproved that a hospital agreed to give certain services to apatient and failed to give them or is not competent to givethem, it is possible that the patient would be able to recoverdamages, whereas in the absence of an express or impliedcontract he could not recover if the case was taken on thebasis of liability for torts. Here it may be noted that ingeneral an action for tort will lie against a corporationwhenever it will lie against an individual, so the mere factthat a hospital is incorporated is not sufficient to relieve itfrom liability.

Since, however, most cases do not arise under liabilityfor contracts, the main subject to be considered in connexionwith the liability of hospitals is the liability for torts. It isperhaps some tribute to the general efficiency of the hospitalsof this country that the reported decisions on hospital andprofessional negligence are very few. It has been said thatthe protection afforded to charitable hospitals in the pasthas been because of the public and the charitable servicewhich they render. A second reason may be that sincethe funds of the hospital had been given in trust for acharitable purpose they could not be diverted to payjudgments, and they would be diverted even though thejudgments might be paid from earned income, patients’contributions, &c. Another reason advanced was thatpatients accepting the charity of the hospital were therebyheld to waive any right for damages which might be sufferedby them. These contentions, however, cannot be upheld ;in fact, exemption of liability on such grounds would workagainst the very interests which the donors had in makingbequests to the hospitals.

What Constitutes NegLigence ?As the liability of the hospital depends upon whether the

doctor or nurse attending the patient has been guilty ofnegligence, it is necessary to consider what in law constitutes