Opinion ID: 1161746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Vicarious Liability of St. John's Hospital

Text: Traditionally, a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of its employees, but not for the negligence of physicians who are independent contractors. See Parker v. Haller, Wyo., 751 P.2d 372 (1988). Appellant does not contend that Dr. Fogarty is an employee of the hospital. Instead, she urges us to adopt the apparent agency rule, which imposes vicarious liability against hospitals for the negligence of those practitioners who are the ostensible or apparent agents of the hospital, regardless of whether they are employees or independent contractors. See 51 A.L.R. 4th 235, § 7 (1987); Louisell and Williams, supra, ¶ 16.08[3]. This theory of liability, which has gained widespread acceptance, stems from judicial recognition that hospitals are corporate entities capable of acting only through human beings whose services the hospital engages and that hospitals derive financial profit by holding themselves out to the public as offering and rendering quality health care services. Hardy v. Brantley, Miss., 471 So.2d 358, 371, 51 A.L.R. 4th 205 (1985). The rule has been stated in the following terms: Where a hospital holds itself out to the public as providing a given service,    and where the hospital enters into a contractual arrangement with one or more physicians to direct and provide the service, and where the patient engages the services of the hospital without regard to the identity of a particular physician and where as a matter of fact the patient is relying upon the hospital to deliver the desired health care and treatment, the doctrine of respondeat superior applies and the hospital is vicariously liable for damages proximately resulting from the neglect, if any, of such physicians. 471 So.2d at 371. The apparent agency rule is supported by well-established tort and agency law principles. The Restatement, Second, Torts, § 429, p. 421 (1965) provides: One who employs an independent contractor to perform services for another which are accepted in the reasonable belief that the services are being rendered by the employer or by his servants, is subject to liability for physical harm caused by the negligence of the contractor in supplying such services, to the same extent as though the employer were supplying them himself or by his servants. Section 267 of the Restatement, Second, Agency (1958) provides: One who represents that another is his servant or other agent and thereby causes a third person justifiably to rely upon the care or skill of such apparent agent is subject to liability to the third person for harm caused by the lack of care or skill of the one appearing to be a servant or other agent as if he were such. Id. at 578. The foregoing authorities are persuasive. We hold that the apparent agency rule is appropriate in this case. Because the record demonstrates genuine fact issues concerning this theory, summary judgment was inappropriate.