90 Wn.2d 43, SHEA v. SPOKANE
CITE: 90 Wn.2d 43, 578 P.2d 42
SHEA v. SPOKANE
CAUSE NUMBER: 45019
FILE DATE: May 4, 1978
CASE TITLE: Michael W. Shea, Respondent, v. The City of
Spokane, Petitioner.
NATURE OF ACTION: Action for damages based on negligent medical treatment received in a city jail. While serving a sentence for drunk driving, the plaintiff became ill and, after being denied medical treatment, collapsed and fell. Despite the plaintiff's repeated complaints of back pain, the prison doctor treated him for alcohol withdrawal only. Later diagnosis revealed spinal injury resulting in partial permanent paralysis.
Superior Court: The Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 205144, John J. Lally, J., after rejecting several instructions offered by the city, including one characterizing the prison physician as an independent contractor for whose negligence the city was not liable, entered a judgment on a verdict in the plaintiff's favor on May 2, 1975.
Court of Appeals: The court, at 17 Wn. App. 236, found the trial court's instructions to correctly state both the duty and standard of care applicable to the medical treatment of prisoners and that the damage award was not excessive, and AFFIRMED the judgment.
Supreme Court: The court adopts the analysis, rationale, and conclusion of the Court of Appeals decision and AFFIRMS the judgment.
COUNSEL: FRANK HAYES JOHNSON and MACGILLIVRAY, JONES, CLARKE, SCHIFFNER & JOHNSON, for petitioner.
TERRY W. MARTIN, DELLWO, RUDOLF & SCHROEDER, CHARLES S. DORN, and DORN, REYNOLDS & GUSTAFSON, for respondent.
AUTHOR OF MAJORITY OPINION: Per Curiam.-
MAJORITY OPINION: The Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff at 17 Wn. App. 236, 562 P.2d 264 (1977).
We granted review on two issues: (1) whether a municipal corporation could delegate its duty to provide health care to a jail inmate and (2) whether the jury instructions properly defined the standard of care imposed upon the jail physician.
We have reviewed the record, the briefs, the opinion of the Court of Appeals and heard excellent oral argument.
We agree with the analysis, rationale and conclusion of the Court of Appeals. Judge Green's opinion is well reasoned. We adopt it and affirm the Court of Appeals.