TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

National Homeopathic Hospital v. Phillips

Nat'l Homeopathic Hosp. v. Phillips, 181 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 27, 1950
Docket
No. 10266
Judges
Proctor, Washington, Bazelson
Citations
181 F.2d 29386 U.S. App. D.C. 2951950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2598

Opinion — Proctor

PROCTOR, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment against appellant hospital for the death by negligence of a patient resulting from a transfusion of incompatible blood erroneously tested and reported as compatible by a technician in the hospital laboratory.

The main question is whether such a relationship prevailed between the hospit *294 al and technician as to render the hospital 'hable upon the principle of respondeat superior.

The trial court held a master and servant relationship did exist, and submitted the question of negligence to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

We think the court was right. The undisputed evidence showed that the laboratory was an established part of the hospital. By arrangement with an outside physician it was operated under his overall direction. The technician was hired and paid by the hospital. In the instant case the hospital, in usual course, ordered a laboratory test. The technician, without the presence or supervision of the physician, made the test and submitted her report directly to the hospital. Relying thereon the hospital made the transfusion. In our opinion the facts clearly established the responsibility of the hospital for the acts of its technician. That responsibility is unaffected even though, agreeably to the requirements of 2 D. C. Code (1940) §§ 101, 102 and 134(b), the technical work in the laboratory was put under the “direction” of a physician.

As to the remaining questions, we think they present no prejudicial error.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1952: 11965: 11967: 11980: 119522026peak 1952 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Vincent A. Alden v. Providence Hospital, George W. Ware, and Habeeb Bacchus382 F.2d 163 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
  2. Davis v. Wilson143 S.E.2d 107 (N.C. 1965)
  3. Mrachek v. Sunshine Biscuit, Inc.202 Misc. 527 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1952)
  4. Lazevnick v. General Hospital of Monroe County499 F. Supp. 146 (M.D. Penn. 1980)

Most recent

  1. Lazevnick v. General Hospital of Monroe County499 F. Supp. 146 (M.D. Penn. 1980)
  2. Vincent A. Alden v. Providence Hospital, George W. Ware, and Habeeb Bacchus382 F.2d 163 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
  3. Davis v. Wilson143 S.E.2d 107 (N.C. 1965)
  4. Mrachek v. Sunshine Biscuit, Inc.202 Misc. 527 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1952)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list