## Facts

- Richard E. Scott, a hospital patient with advanced multiple sclerosis, had serious coordination and balance impairments and weakness in his arms and legs.
- On the morning of the incident, Scott received a Thorazine injection and then went to a hospital bathroom to use the toilet.
- The bathroom had a standard toilet flush handle and, nearby, a separate bedpan flusher control located higher on the wall that released very hot water (about 140°F).
- While attempting to flush the toilet, Scott mistakenly activated the bedpan flusher and was inundated with scalding water, sustaining severe burns.
- Scott sued the hospital for negligence based on the placement and dangerous nature of the controls and the hospital’s failure to take adequate safety measures despite notice of the hazard.
- Evidence showed the hospital knew of at least two prior patient accidents involving inadvertent activation of the bedpan flusher and one staff incident causing a reddened arm.
- The unit head nurse reported the incidents, expressed concern, and requested removal of the hot-water controls; the hospital removed controls only in part of the unit, leaving some rooms (including the one involved) unchanged until after Scott’s injury.
- A jury returned a defense verdict for the hospital; the trial court granted Scott’s motion to correct error and ordered a new trial as to the hospital, finding the verdict against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed; the Indiana Supreme Court accepted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting aside the jury’s defense verdict and ordering a new trial because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
2. Whether contributory negligence had to be evaluated by a rigid “ordinary reasonable person” standard, or instead by what was reasonable for a person with Scott’s physical impairments and knowledge under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court.
- The Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting a new trial against the hospital.
- The Court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in concluding (1) the hospital’s negligence was supported by the evidence and (2) Scott was not contributorily negligent when his physical condition and lack of awareness of the danger were considered.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has broad discretion to grant a new trial when it finds a jury verdict clearly erroneous, against the weight of the evidence, or unsupported by the evidence; appellate courts should not readily overturn such orders when grounded in the record and supported by articulated findings.
- Proof that a defendant had actual notice of a recurring, deceptively dangerous condition and failed to implement complete corrective measures can support a finding of negligence despite evidence of general compliance with prevailing construction practices.
- Contributory negligence is assessed by the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in the plaintiff’s condition under like circumstances; serious physical impairment and limited awareness of a hazard are relevant to that assessment.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s new-trial order, holding that the evidence of the hospital’s notice and incomplete remediation supported negligence and that contributory negligence could properly be evaluated in light of the patient’s disability and knowledge rather than by a rigid, able-bodied reasonable-person standard.


Mem'l Hosp. of S. Bend, Inc. v. Scott, 300 N.E.2d 50 (Ind. 1973)