Court Opinion

ID: 9560589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:51:51.07339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:01.975750
License: Public Domain

Judge ORR
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent solely on the grounds that my review of the evidence before this Court indicates that defendant did not owe Mozingo, Jr. a duty of care in the absence of a physician-patient relationship. Without establishing a duty of care, there can be no negligence, and therefore, summary judgment in defendant’s favor was proper.
While the majority’s recitation of the law on this issue is correct, I do not agree that “defendant failed to prove that he did not owe a duty of care to Mozingo, Jr.” I find that defendant provided sufficient evidence that he did not owe such duty to Mozingo, Jr., and further find that Mozingo, Jr. did nothing to rebut defendant’s evidence on this issue.
The determination of any question of duty — that is, whether the defendant stands in such a relation to the plaintiff that the law will impose upon him an obligation of reasonable conduct for the benefit of the plaintiff — has been held to be an issue of law for the court rather than for the jury, to be *592determined by reference to the body of statutes, rules, principles, and precedents which make up the law.. . . the evidence and scope or range of the duty .... [OJnce a duty has been found to exist, the question of whether the duty was properly performed is ordinarily a question to be decided by the trier of fact.
57A Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 86.
The undisputed evidence of record regarding defendant’s alleged duty establishes that defendant, as an employee of Eastern, met all of his contractual obligations to provide supervision to the Medical School’s residency program. Defendant began his “on call” supervision duties pursuant to the contract at 5:00 p.m. on 5 December 1984. He remained at home (as he was permitted to do under the contract) with an open telephone line. Immediately upon receiving the request for assistance from Dr. Melinda Warren, defendant went to the hospital to assist the resident physicians in Mozingo, Jr.’s delivery. By the time he arrived, the baby had been delivered.
Dr. William Dillon, M.D., an expert physician, testifying for plaintiff, stated in his deposition that “it was incumbent upon the chief resident to inform the staff physician of the presence of this patient.” Dr. Dillon was speaking in terms of informing the staff physician (defendant) at the time the patient was admitted to the hospital. It is undisputed that the patient was admitted to the hospital before 5:00 p.m., but that defendant was not notified of such until he received the call at his home later in the evening.
Dr. Dillon later contradicted himself on this point when he stated:
Therefore, I think in at least a minimum sense a supervising physician needs to make contact sometimes, preferably at the beginning [of his on call service], and maybe a few times in between, as to what is occurring on his service.
Dr. Dillon testified as to his opinion on what the supervising physician should do. However,' the defendant was not required by the contract under which he worked nor was the accepted practice at all of the teaching hospitals in North Carolina any different from what he in fact did. We find no evidence that defendant in any way breached his contract for providing on call services on 5 December 1984, or acted or failed to act in a manner which would establish a duty of care under the facts of this case. While *593defendant could have called the residents on duty at the hospital at the beginning of his on call service, he was under no obligation to do so, pursuant to the contract or otherwise, and as such no duty existed as a matter of law to the plaintiff Mozingo, Jr.
I therefore dissent, and would hold that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in defendants’ favor.