Opinion ID: 1382318
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue One: Exclusion of Evidence Relating to Consent Agreement

Text: The appellant sought to have evidence of the consent agreement, Nurse Grim's probation, and the hospital's duty to supervise Nurse Grim admitted at trial to support a negligent supervision claim against the hospital, and now alleges that the circuit court improperly dismissed the claim of negligence against Cabell Huntington Hospital by excluding this evidence. The negligent supervision claim is based on the theory that the hospital breached its duty, imposed by the consent agreement, to supervise Nurse Grim. [11] The appellant's purpose in bringing a negligent supervision claim is not clear to this Court. Cabell Huntington Hospital was a named defendant in the action below and remained so throughout the proceedings despite the allegation of the appellant to the contrary. Counsel for the hospital acknowledged that if the jury found that a negligent act of Nurse Grim caused the appellant's injury, the hospital would be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. [12] The circuit court instructed the jury that if it found that Nurse Grim committed negligence, the jury may also render a verdict against the hospital. Finally, appellant's counsel argued to the jury that the hospital would be liable for damages caused by Nurse Grim's negligence. Nevertheless, the appellant sought to establish the hospital's liability by proving negligent supervision. The appellant now argues that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not preclude other causes of action against an employer. Because of the verdict in this case, we need not consider the viability of a negligent supervision claim in cases governed by the doctrine of respondeat superior. The appellant's claim of negligent supervision must rest upon a showing that the hospital failed to properly supervise Nurse Grim and, as a result, Nurse Grim committed a negligent act which proximately caused the appellant's injury. To recover in an action based on negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was guilty of primary negligence and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury for which the plaintiff seeks a recovery of damages. Syllabus point 2, Tolliver v. Shumate, 151 W.Va. 105, 150 S.E.2d 579 (1966). While the appellant may be able to show that the hospital breached its duty to supervise Nurse Grim, absent a showing of negligence by Nurse Grim, the appellant is unable to show that the hospital's negligence proximately caused her injury. Accordingly, because the jury found that Nurse Grim's negligence did not cause the appellant's injury, we find the issue of alleged negligent supervision to be moot. [13]