Assessing the Significance of Wuerth Respondeat Superior According to the

Assessing the significance of wuerth respondeat

This preview shows page 8 - 11 out of 14 pages.

Assessing the Significance of Wuerth Respondeat Superior According to the Respondeat Superior, an employer (or master) is vicariously responsible for the wrongful acts or negligence displayed by its agents or employees while performing work he/she has been assigned. The original concepts of this theory state, “one may presume that the servant acted by his master’s authority” (The Three Conditions Required for Respondeat Superior, n.d.). Losito v. Kruse, 1940 In the 1940’s case of Losito v. Kruse , the Ohio Supreme Court stated, it the Theory of Respondeat Superior , a plaintiff possesses the lawful right to proceed action against an employer (master), agents/ servants/ employees, or against both (The Three Conditions Required for Respondeat Superior, n.d.).
Image of page 8
Respondeat Superior 9 Flagg v. Bedford, 1966 and Billings v. Falkenburg, 1986 In this case, the court ruled that until an injured party has obtained their satisfaction, he/she has can lawfully file a malpractice suit against the person(s) primarily (or secondary response. An injured party may seek to recover from an employer if he/she can prove an employee’s acts (that occurred within the premise of their assigned duties) were responsible the damages or injuries caused, although the employee is not listed as a codefendant. The Agency of Estoppel The principle of Agency of Estoppel states an employer is not responsible for negligence caused by an independent contractor. However, certain circumstances do not apply. Primarily physicians are to be held accountable for their practices and actions while within the hospital setting, however, nursing employees do not adhere to these same guidelines. Unlike most physicians, primarily nurses are not independent contractors but employees who are under the hospital’s direct supervision. They must uphold hospital standards and adhere to guidelines. Also, a nurse is a hospital employee who does not have a binding contract; therefore, he/she may be hired or terminated at any time. In rare circumstances, to state a claim medical negligence or malpractice which has occurred due to a physician’s acts a plaintiff must prove this first as the primary liability and then identify the hospital as secondary liable. The Court’s Final Ruling According to the court it was determined, Wuerth could not be applied for two main reasons. The court stated:
Image of page 9
Respondeat Superior 10 Wuerth does not apply here for two reasons: first, the unique relationship of the attorney tortfeasor, Richard Wuerth, to his law firm is distinguishable from that held by a nurse employed by the hospital, and second, in precluding legal-malpractice claims directly against a law firm, Wuerth’s holding was expressly limited to its facts (p. 22). Due to this outcome, it was determined that the hospital employed the accused tortfeasors, therefore the plaintiffs was granted permission to proceed their vicarious liability claim to recover damages based on the guidelines of the Respondeat Superior Theory . Wuerth is unfitting to this case. Therefore, it was determined the trial court make a mistake when it previously
Image of page 10
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 14 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • Health care provider, Respondeat Superior, Toledo Hospital

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture