-
321 N.E.2d 787 Ohio Supreme Court January 8, 1975 No. 74-10
Although appellant has raised four propositions of law, the basic issue is whether a tortfeasor responding in damages resulting from the negligent treatment by a physician of the original injury caused by the negligence of the tortfeasor
Although a tortfeasor, pursuant to Tanner, supra, is liable for the results of negligent treatment by a physician of the injury caused by the tortfeasor, the physician is not responsible for the results of the negligence of the tortfeasor
However, the original tortfeasor is responsible for the negligence of the physician because the tortfeasor’s negligence created the risk (the injury) and the occasion for the independent negligence of the physician.
-
189 S.E.2d 412 Supreme Court of Georgia May 3, 1972 No. 27008
in permitting the alleged negligent physician to practice his profession in the hospital, when his incompetency is known.
The mere fact that he was a licensed physician of the State of Georgia recommended by the other doctors on the staff as required by law does not overcome the averments that the hospital was negligent in failing to exercise care in
Paragraph 11 of the complaint merely charged the physician with negligence.
-
397 A.2d 803 Superior Court of Pennsylvania February 2, 1979 No. 1240
of the original wrongdoer and the negligent physician are separate from each other in nature and time, the damages are accordingly apportionable.
A growing number of courts have either accepted or are accepting this latter rationale and recognize that a release of the original wrongdoer does not in itself preclude an action against the negligently treating physician.
For example, an original wrongdoer may have the right of indemnity against the treating physician if the original tortfeasor is held liable for damages resulting from both his negligence and that of the physician.
-
305 So. 2d 724 Louisiana Court of Appeal December 10, 1974 No. 6500
of a treating physician.
These cases hold that the tort feasor owes the full amount of damages including that part caused by the negligence of the treating physician. We see no distinction where such negligent treatment produces the death of the patient.
It is obvious that a negligent physician would be liable for damages resulting from his negligence but not for the initial damages where they could be separated.
-
283 N.W.2d 362 Supreme Court of Minnesota July 13, 1979 Nos. 48526, 48548
for which defendant doctor is responsible rather than from some other cause or some other person’s negligence.”
*368 Defendant hospital also argues that its negligence, if any, was superseded by the negligence of the doctors. The jury was not instructed on the law of superseding or intervening negligence, rather on concurring cause.
Here, the fact that the hospital’s duty continued towards plaintiff for as long as he stayed in the hospital, the fact that the doctors’ negligence was foreseeable, the possibility that the doctors’ negligence was brought about by
-
207 S.E.2d 659 Court of Appeals of Georgia June 18, 1974 No. 49365
Accordingly, a hospital is not liable for the negligent treatment of a patient by a physician who is not employed as a servant, but performs his duties as an independent contractor. Pogue v.
App. 230 (4), supra: "A hospital is not liable for the negligence of a physician employed by it where the negligence relates to a matter of professional judgment on the part of the physician when the hospital does not exercise and
In the matter sub judice, the administrator’s *169 affidavit failed to establish that the allegedly negligent doctor was an independent contractor of the hospital.
-
195 S.E.2d 821 West Virginia Supreme Court March 6, 1973 No. 13196Cited by 19 Concurrence · Sprouse
In reaching its final conclusion in the Makarenko case, the Court reviewed a large area of the law of negligence, but reduced to its basic reasoning the plaintiff there was denied the right to sue a negligent doctor on two legal principles
The first principle was that a person who negligently causes personal injuries is liable for increased damages due to the negligence of a physician who treats and aggravates the original injury when the injured person exercises reasonable
to bar an action against a negligent doctor after a release of the original tort-feasor.
-
213 S.E.2d 102 West Virginia Supreme Court February 18, 1975 No. 13484
recovery by injured person of the physician for alleged negligent treatment.”
The Cox case held that an injured party could recover a judgment against an attorney who negligently failed to institute a seasonable cause of action against an alleged malpracticing physician who had aggravated, by unskillful
action against a physician or hospital for damages incurred by their negligent treatment or medical care of the original injury.
-
210 S.E.2d 154 Supreme Court of Virginia December 2, 1974 No. Record 731015
Smith was liable, the plaintiff alleged, for the negligence of the physicians in treating her injuries.
Powell’s injuries were aggravated by the negligent treatment of his physician, Dr. Troland.
It is true, as the present defendant-physicians point out, that in Powell we referred to the original wrongdoer and the negligent treating physician as joint tort-feasors.
-
233 N.W.2d 372 Wisconsin Supreme Court September 30, 1975 No. 57 (1974)
The plaintiffs also claim the doctor was negligent in failing to advise her of the availability of an abortion.
*776 Subject to the proof at trial, we conclude the doctor was negligent in not diagnosing the rubella the plaintiff-wife was suffering and inquiring as to pregnancy.
If the doctor is found at the trial to have been negligent in those respects, it follows he had a duty to inform the plaintiff-mother of the effects of rubella.
-
503 P.2d 1366 California Supreme Court December 22, 1972 No. L.A. 30024
of the doctors’ negligence.
Indeed it shows that in addition to claiming negligence on the part of the three doctors, plaintiff asserted that defendant corporation, independently of the conduct of the doctors, was negligent in the procedures established by it
It alleges in substance that defendants, including the corporate defendant as well as the doctors, negligently performed the physical examination.
-
260 S.E.2d 493 Court of Appeals of Georgia September 4, 1979 No. 57671
App. 577 (4) ( 206 SE2d 853 ), in support of their proposition that a person who originally negligently inflicts an injury on a person and a physician who later negligently treats the injury cannot be regarded as joint tortfeasors.
resulted in a door falling upon plaintiffs head) and the alleged negligence of the attending physician, which the court stated "resulted from his treatment of the patient
Appellees’ assertion that an original tortfeasor and a subsequently negligent physician cannot be joint tortfeasors is without merit. See Gilmore v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth., supra. 2.
-
187 N.W.2d 349 Wisconsin Supreme Court June 2, 1971 No. 278
Doctors were also liable independently for the results of their own negligence and the doctrine was applied to give them the benefit of any general payments made by the original tort-feasor to the injured party. In Hooyman v.
The original tort-feasor and the subsequent negligent doctor, even though his negligence aggravates the original injury, are not joint tort-feasors although they may have a joint liability in part; such joint liability does not give
*288 We do not believe a negligent doctor who aggravates the original injury is liable for the damage directly caused by the original tort-feasor. The plaintiff argues he is, and there is language in Bolick v.
-
595 P.2d 934 Washington Supreme Court May 31, 1979 No. 45737
Dengel, alleging the doctor negligently failed to make a diagnosis early enough to prevent the ultimate development of his disease which necessitated surgery. He introduced evidence at trial by means of the testimony of Dr.
Lindquist's proposed instruction that a negligent doctor cannot avoid liability for aggravation of injuries on the ground they resulted from negligent later treatment, where that treatment was necessitated by his own negligence.
If petitioner were not negligent, for example, he could bear no liability for the negligence of other physicians treating Mr. Lindquist.
-
574 P.2d 481 Court of Appeals of Arizona November 14, 1977 No. 2 CA-CIV 2621
Appellant did not produce any evidence from medical doctors that the doctors were negligent.
However, appellant’s witnesses were not competent to give an opinion as to whether the doctors were negligent.
And for centuries the courts of this and other countries have, almost without exception, held that expert medical evidence is required to establish negligence respecting the service a physician or a surgeon renders his patient.”
-
1977 OK 90, 564 P.2d 636 Supreme Court of Oklahoma May 17, 1977 No. 48414
He further urges the Act should not be used to protect physicians and hospitals from liability for their own negligence.
Apparently in both these cases, on basis of liability of employer alone, the court found an injured employee could not maintain a common law action for pain and suffering against a negligent treating physician.
Nowhere does it confer a similar immunity upon a negligent physician or hospital.
-
294 N.E.2d 132 Indiana Supreme Court April 4, 1973 No. 1272S165
On the same day, plaintiff received medical attention from defendant, a physician. In this suit plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent in his care and treatment.
If one were injured in an accident where no one was at fault and one’s injuries were subsequently aggravated by the negligent acts of a physician, one would not be without a cause of action against the physician.
It should only be to avoid unjust enrichment and prevent double recovery that any monies received from other sources would be credited against a recovery from the negligent physician.
-
545 S.W.2d 557 Court of Appeals of Texas December 29, 1976 No. 1492
Andrew for damages, alleging the physician was negligent in four particulars: (1) failing to properly administer the x-ray treatment; (2) failing to keep a proper observation of the variables and factors important to a proper x-ray
on the part of the defendant physician; negligence cannot be inferred solely from a failure to cure or unexpected result.
As discussed above, there was no medical testimony that the damage in this case would not ordinarily occur unless the treating physician was negligent and the case was therefore not to be submitted under res ipsa loquitur.
-
366 N.E.2d 64 New York Court of Appeals June 16, 1977
In their complaint the parents allege that the doctor was negligent in that he failed to take a proper genealogical history or to properly evaluate it.
In the case now before us, we assume, as we must in connection with this motion to dismiss (Cohn v Lionel Corp., 21 NY2d 559, 562 ), that the doctor was negligent in failing to take the proper measures to determine whether the fetus
Analogous, indeed stronger since the injuries would directly result from the tortious conduct of the *113 doctor, would be a case in which the doctor, in delivering the infant from the mother’s womb, committed an act of negligence
-
1976 OK 179, 557 P.2d 910 Supreme Court of Oklahoma November 30, 1976 No. 48412
On July 8, 1958, she filed malpractice action against physician for damages resulting from negligent treatment of injuries suffered in fall.
There we held in paragraph one of syllabus : “There can’ be no recovery in a malpractice suit by one who has sustained personal injuries in consequence of a third person’s negligence, against a physician for negligent aggravation
or surgeon for damages incurred by his negligent treatment of the injury, at least in the absence of a finding that the negligence of the physician or surgeon produced an entirely new injury.”
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.