Hankins, 249 N.C. 199 , 105 S.E. 2d 642 , to the effect that a general release executed in favor of one responsible for the original injury protects a physician or surgeon against a claim based on negligent treatment of the injury

The physician or surgeon is in no wise responsible for the prior injuries, nor should a release to one who caused them be a shield by which 'a negligent doctor may escape liability for his own negligence.

Such a release by judgment is embraced in G.S. 1-540.1, and does not relieve a negligent doctor.

The insurance carrier filed a cross-complaint against the physician for contribution on the theory that if the carrier and the physician were negligent they were joint tort feasors.

The decision in the Hoover case does not relate to the right of the injured employee to proceed directly against the physician or surgeon for damages due to negligent treatment of the original injury.

This provision of the Act has no relation to the liability of an attending physician or surgeon for negligence in the treatment of an injured employee.

Kazior's negligent supervision of resident physicians at Pitt County Memorial Hospital ("Hospital").

Swarthout, Annotation, Validity and Construction of Contract Exempting Hospital or Doctor from Liability for Negligence to Patient, 6 A.L.R.3d 704 (1966) (cases cited and analyzed therein and in the supplement); cf. 61 Am.Jur.2d Physicians

Kazior's liability for the alleged negligent delivery performed by resident physicians.

The above cases hold that it is the rule that if a doctor is not an agent of a hospital and he negligently injures his patient while on the premises of the hospital, the hospital is not liable to the patient on the theory of respondeat

The doctor in this case is not an agent of the hospital but *376 we believe the principle of Hoke should apply and a hospital should be liable for negligence in allowing an unqualified doctor to perform operations in the hospital

The plaintiff contends it is negligence not to provide such assistance although the hospital does not know the doctor is unqualified if it would have known through the exercise of ordinary care.

, were negligent in their supervision of the resident physicians.

Kazior, as the on-call supervising physician when the plaintiff child was born, alleging negligent supervision of the OB resident physicians. The plaintiffs alleged that Dr.

who had been granted clinical privileges at the Hospital), thereby allowing the resident physicians’ negligence to be imputed to the attending physicians.

by the negligent treatment of the injury.

McIver, sufra, the Court said: “The rule is now well established that a wrongdoer is liable for the ultimate result, though the mistake or even negligence of the physician who treated the injury may have increased the damage which

would otherwise have followed from the original wrong. * i:‘ In such case satisfaction by the original wrongdoer of all damages by his wrong bars action against the negligent physician who aggravated the damage.

The general rule is that an action for damages caused by the negligence or unskillfulness of a physician or surgeon engaged by one person to attend upon another, professionally, cannot be maintained against the employer, unless he

of such surgeon or physician.

of the surgeon or physician.”

, and that without proof of negligence in this respect no liability attaches to the hospital for injury due to negligence or unskillful treatment of the patient by the physician.

Ordinarily, the hospital undertakes only to furnish room, food, facilities for operation, and attendance, and is not liable for damages resulting from the negligence of a physician in the absence of evidence of agency, or other facts

The rationale of the general rule which exempts employers from liability for the negligence of a physician is stated in 19 L. R.

These were three-fold: plaintiffs alleged first that Hall’s action in revealing confidential information disclosed to him during his treatment of plaintiff Linda Watts to her various physicians constituted malpractice; second, that

Hall negligently conducted his counseling of her and exceeded the proper parameters of his role; and third, that he had intentionally assisted her physicians in fraudulently concealing from her the true nature of her injuries in an

She alleges that the physicians who treated her at that time negligently failed to discover these fractures, and those who have treated her since knew about these fractures and “covered up” for the original doctors’ negligence.

The evidence disclosed that the alleged acts of negligence of the nurse were committed in administering a heat treatment to a patient while the physician in charge was standing by directing the mode of treatment and impliedly approving

On the contrary, the rationale of the decision in the Byrd case is, not that nonsuit as to the nurse immunizes the physician, but rather, if the acts and omissions complained of be negligent, they then are referable and imputable to

the true author thereof, the physician who directed or suffered the negligent conduct through the instrumentality of an agent under his control, and that therefore the physician alone is responsible and liable therefor.

They are, of course, entitled to every reasonable consideration, but there should not be drawn around them unnatural or artificial immunities to shield them against acts of negligence.

Nevertheless, the law of negligence holds a physician or surgeon liable for an injury to a patient proximately resulting from a want of that degree of knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by other members of his profession, or

allegation that Metcalfe failed to use reasonable care in selecting bis physician, be is liable, if at all, for all damages which proximately resulted from the original injuries, including such as were partly caused by tbe unsuccessful or negligent

treatment by the physician or surgeon.

A party whose negligent conduct causes an injury and the physician who negligently treats the injury thus inflicted, thereby aggravating the damages flowing from the original injury, are not joint tort-feasors. Fisher v.

The trial judge, having determined that there was sufficient evidence of a physician-patient relationship, instructed the jury that the medical malpractice was the negligent care and treatment of a patient by a doctor.

The interests of doctors and patients alike can best be served by medical malpractice insurance that protects the doctor and patient, even when the doctor’s negligence is wanton or gross.

The insurance company in this case would not contend that doctors *627 would be more reckless or would more frequently commit gross negligence simply because they are insured under a professional liability insurance policy that

The basis of liability of a physician or surgeon for negligence in the care of his patient is thus stated in Hunt v.

Prosser on Torts, 3rd ed., Negligence, p. 166. He is, however, held to the standard of professional competence and care customary in similar communities among physicians engaged in his field of practice. Thus, in Wiggins v.

French, was negligent in, inter alia, diagnosing prostate cancer and not informing plaintiff-patient, Daniel Alexander McGill, or the referring physician, Dr. Woolfolk.

In Powell , the plaintiff alleged that her physician, Dr. Shull, negligently treated her between 17 April 1977 and 2 August 1977 for a fractured arm.

Shull’s office or contact another doctor. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant negligent and the plaintiff contributorily negligent. Powell, 58 N.C. App. at 69-70 , 293 S.E.2d at 261 .

The doctor prescribed a contraceptive, Norinyl; however, the defendant pharmacist negligently supplied Mrs. Troppi with Nardil, a mild tranquilizer. Mrs.

If a physician undertakes to treat a patient, that physician is generally liable for damages resulting from the negligent performance of his or her duties on the tort theory of malpractice, regardless of the availability of other theories

Piver upheld sub silentio the right of the father to assert a claim based upon negligence of a doctor resulting in an unplanned pregnancy of his wife. 45 N.C.

Conceding that there was evidence from which the jury might infer that the surgeon who performed the operation negligently permitted gauze or packing to remain in the wound made by him in the performance of the operation (McCormick

of such surgeon or physician.

of the surgeon or physician.

or when the treatment ordered by the physician was “obviously negligent or dangerous.”

Under Byrd, however, plaintiffs cannot establish that a nurse acts negligently in collaborating on a treatment plan with a doctor.

Thus, even if a nurse’s collaboration is negligent, the fact that the physician makes the ultimate care decision means that the nurse’s negligence would not be the proximate cause of any injury.