Charitable immunity
Encyclopedia
Charitable immunity is a legal doctrine which holds that a charitable organization
is not liable under tort
law. It originated in 19th century Britain.
The early form of charitable immunity in England did not provide immunity from suit; it only protected segregated funds held in a recognized equitable trust for the organization. See, 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). 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. See, Holliday v. St. Leonard, Shoreditch, 142 Eng Rep 769 (1861) (discussed in Callopy). 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). See also Georgetown College v. Hughes, 130 F.2d 810, 816-17 (1942) (discussing history of doctrine).
Between the 1940s and 1992, almost every state in the United States had abrogated or limited the charitable immunity doctrine. The doctrine has also been abandoned in Britain and Canada.
The doctrine has especially been relevant, or discussed, in the context of child sexual abuse
and medical malpractice
.
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.
Charitable organization
A charitable organization is a type of non-profit organization . It differs from other types of NPOs in that it centers on philanthropic goals A charitable organization is a type of non-profit organization (NPO). It differs from other types of NPOs in that it centers on philanthropic goals A...
is not liable under tort
Tort
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else. It is differentiated from a crime, which involves a breach of a duty owed to society in general...
law. It originated in 19th century Britain.
The early form of charitable immunity in England did not provide immunity from suit; it only protected segregated funds held in a recognized equitable trust for the organization. See, 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). 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. See, Holliday v. St. Leonard, Shoreditch, 142 Eng Rep 769 (1861) (discussed in Callopy). 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). See also Georgetown College v. Hughes, 130 F.2d 810, 816-17 (1942) (discussing history of doctrine).
Between the 1940s and 1992, almost every state in the United States had abrogated or limited the charitable immunity doctrine. The doctrine has also been abandoned in Britain and Canada.
The doctrine has especially been relevant, or discussed, in the context of child sexual abuse
Child sexual abuse
Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation. Forms of child sexual abuse include asking or pressuring a child to engage in sexual activities , indecent exposure with intent to gratify their own sexual desires or to...
and medical malpractice
Medical malpractice
Medical malpractice is professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which the treatment provided falls below the accepted standard of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient, with most cases involving medical error. Standards and...
.
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.