-
681 P.2d 1038 Supreme Court of Kansas April 27, 1984 No. 55,655Cited by 122 Dissent · Schroeder
The plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of her doctors and on the part of Ortho.
Ortho objected to the dismissal of the physicians, and at trial sought to have their negligence compared.
It cannot be successfully argued the doctors were not negligent in the administration of this prescription drug, or in their treatment of this young plaintiff, after her blood pressure in December 1974 was diagnosed by them as high
-
587 A.2d 1346 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania March 15, 1991 No. 5 W.D. Appeal Dkt. 1989Cited by 149 Dissent · Larsen
*555 If a doctor is negligent in saving a human life, the doctor pays. If a priest is negligent in saving the spirit of a human, the priest pays.
-
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*368 Defendant hospital also argues that its negligence, if any, was superseded by the negligence of the doctors.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
-
423 N.W.2d 848 Wisconsin Supreme Court May 31, 1988 No. 87-0029
fact that the specific physician who committed the negligent act was an independent contractor.
Trinity, on the other hand, argues that a hospital’s liability should be limited to that stemming from negligence in selecting a physician and from the negligence of a physician who is an employee of the hospital.
According to Trinity, to impose liability when the treating physician is not a servant and the hospital has not been negligent in selecting the physician would make a hospital liable for all acts of negligence occurring within the
-
628 P.2d 337 New Mexico Court of Appeals April 16, 1981 No. 4637
Civ. 8.1, that the only way it could decide whether the Doctor was negligent was “from evidence presented in this trial by physicians and surgeons testifying as expert witnesses.”
were based on negligence on the part of the Doctor.
The jury’s answers established that the Doctor was not negligent. Negligence on the part of the Doctor is not involved in this point.
-
227 Cal. App. 2d 69 California Court of Appeal May 6, 1964 Nos. 21146, 21147
and his injuries are aggravated by the negligence of such doctor, the law regards the act of the original wrongdoer as a proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent negligent medical treatment and holds him liable therefor
The court determined that plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment against all defend *76 ants, and that the original negligent defendant would he entitled to judgment against the negligent doctor for the aggravation of damages
It is alleged that a blood transfusion was negligently administered to decedent by the cross-defendant doctors and hospital and that decedent died the day following her admission to the hospital.
-
818 P.2d 295 Idaho Supreme Court September 9, 1991 No. 18208
Clair, contending: (1) the doctor was negligent during the delivery by artificially rupturing Mrs.
The doctor defended on the ground that he was not negligent in rupturing the fetal membranes, that the prolapsed cord occurred independent of any negligence on the part of the doctor, and that the doctor responded properly to the occurrence
The jury might have concluded that the doctor’s negligence could not have been a proximate cause because even if the doctor had not been negligent, the brain damage and death of the child would have occurred.
-
597 So. 2d 667 Supreme Court of Alabama March 6, 1992 Nos. 1900270, 1900332
The action is not one in which the hospital is sought to be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a staff physician.
College Park Hospital , supra (hospital is liable to patient under doctrine of corporate negligence for negligent conduct of independent physicians and surgeons even though they are neither employees nor agents of hospital); Johnson
Supp. 531 (E.D.Tenn. 1978), affirmed , 647 F.2d 164 (6th Cir. 1981) (if health care provider does not use due care in selection of physician, such provider is liable for subsequent negligence or malpractice of physician chosen).
-
87 A.3d 285 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 7, 2014Cited by 60 Dissent · Castille
The court then provided a comprehensive description of professional negligence: Professional negligence consists of a [] negligent, careless or unskilled performance by a physician of the duties imposed upon her by the professional
A physician who’s [sic] conduct falls below the standard of care is negligent.
Under the law physicians are permitted a broad range of judgment in their professional duties and physicians are not liable for errors of judgment unless it’s proven that an error of judgment was the result of negligence.
-
613 P.2d 238 California Supreme Court July 10, 1980 No. L.A. 31226
She asserts that the doctors who treated her were negligent, and that she suffered additional injuries as a result of their negligence.
The issue, then, is whether the fact that plaintiff is seeking to hold liable the county which employed the allegedly negligent doctors rather than the negligent physician-employer himself is determinative.
The fact that the county allegedly breached this obligation by employing negligent doctors rather than by some other purportedly negligent act did not absolve it of its responsibility to assure that the medical care which it directly
-
848 F.2d 1364 Fifth Circuit August 18, 1988 No. 87-3478
physician.”
issue as to whether defendants negligently hired the doctor?
Barbet-ta’s diabetes somehow proves that Bahama Cruise must have been negligent — apparently, the Barbettas are asserting that it is negligence per se to hire a doctor who cannot diagnose a condition, as the Barbettas characterize
-
370 P.2d 156 Supreme Court of Colorado April 2, 1962 No. 19877
Having determined that the disability resulting from the negligent treatment by the physician was compensable, it remains to be determined whether the physician whose negligence increased the disability is a third person under C.R.S
insurer are entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the employee in his malpractice action against the negligent physician.
However, the employee’s claim, being bifurcated, he can recover from the doctor only such damages as flow from the doctor’s negligence.
-
953 So. 2d 461 Supreme Court of Florida February 15, 2007 No. SC04-393
Neri, alleging, inter alia, that the doctor had acted negligently in his treatment of Elizabeth and that Carnival should be held vicariously liable for such negligence under theories of agency and apparent agency, and that Carnival
If the carrier breaches its duty, it is responsible for its own negligence. If the doctor is negligent in treating a passenger, however, that negligence will not be imputed to the carrier. Id. at 1369 (emphasis added).
One case involved a railroad's liability for the negligence of its physician, Secord v. St. Paul Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry.
-
39 S.W.2d 269 Tennessee Supreme Court June 10, 1931
That was a suit at law in which it was held that, having used reasonable care in the selection of a physician, the master was not liable to his servant for injuries resulting’ from the negligence of that physician.
Nevertheless, if one is injured by the negligence of another and these injuries are aggravated by the negligence' of a physician, the negligence of the wrongdoer in causing the original injury is regarded as the proximate cause of
the damage flowing from the subsequent negligent treatment by the physician.
-
318 U.S. 660 Supreme Court May 3, 1943 No. 436
The concession of the ship's doctor that he would have heeded such a recommendation is not of itself evidence of negligence.
The doctor apparently made a wrong diagnosis, but that does not prove that it was a negligent one.
The Secord case gives only a charge to a jury in a case where the issue was liability of a railroad to a passenger for negligent treatment by a physician in its employ.
-
46 P.2d 633 Supreme Court of Kansas July 6, 1935 No. 32,350
The law regards the negligence of the person who causes the original injury as the proximate cause of damages flowing from the negligence of the physician and holds him liable therefor.
who may have been negligent in treating the case.
the treatment, and a poor result is obtained because of the negligence of the physician, the law regards the negligence of the one who caused the original injury as the proximate cause of the damages flowing from the negligence of
-
989 F.2d 171 Fifth Circuit March 24, 1993 No. 92-8442
action against the doctor had run.
Physician], committed any act of negligence in the care and treatment of Jermaine Broussard."
Even if we were convinced that someone other than that doctor was negligent toward Jermaine, the Broussards cannot prevail in this negligence suit.
-
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.
-
401 P.2d 350 Washington Supreme Court January 7, 1965 No. 37100
The bus company and driver answered and cross-complained against the doctor and Group Health, alleging that the sole cause of the accident was the negligence of the doctor.
The doctor and Group Health denied negligence and claimed that the driver was hypersensitive to pyribenzamine.
The negligence of the bus driver is a jury question, and should the jury find the bus driver to be negligent, the doctor would nevertheless be liable if the jury finds he failed to give warning of the side effects of the drug, since
-
361 S.E.2d 164 Supreme Court of Georgia October 21, 1987 No. 44468
The Browns contended that Isiah Brown was seriously injured due to the negligent rendering of medical services by the two doctors. This alleged negligence was charged to University Hospital on the basis of respondeat superior.
of the doctors.
It should be noted that the doctrine can seldom apply to the customary situation in which a patient consults his own doctor who then has him admitted to a hospital where the doctor renders negligent medical services.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.