Assessing the significance of wuerth respondeat

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.).

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:

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