Court Opinion

ID: 9664369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:16:14.10574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:05.274860
License: Public Domain

VENTERS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the sound reasoning and scholarly analysis expressed by Special Justice Mando in our rejection of the negligence per se rule of Laws v. Harter, 534 S.W.2d 449 (Ky.1975), and adoption of the res ipsa loquitor approach to medical negligence issues arising from surgical objects left in a patient. But, I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with respect to the issue of Dr. Nazar’s vicarious liability for the negligent failure of the nursing staff to accurately count the Dura-hooks removed from his patient’s scalp.
The Majority concedes that the dual agency doctrine of City of Somerset v. Hart, 549 S.W.2d 814 (Ky.1977) is alive and well. But despite the substantial similarity in the facts of Hart and the instant case, the Majority concludes that Branham failed to produce sufficient evidence of an agency relationship between Dr. Nazar and the surgical nursing staff to justify submission of the issue to the jury. The existence of an agency relationship is a legal conclusion to be reached only after analyzing the relevant facts. Wright v. Sullivan Payne Co., 839 S.W.2d 250, 253 (Ky.1992). Where the facts are in dispute and the evidence is contradictory or conflicting, the question of agency is one of fact to be determined by the jury. See CSX Transportation, Inc. v. First National Bank of Grayson, 14 S.W.3d 563, 566 (Ky.App.1999). The right to control is considered the most critical element in determining whether an agency relationship exists. Id. at 567. Nazar admitted that he was responsible for the removal of all of the Durahooks used. He testified that the surgical nursing staff was under his supervision during the surgery. He depended upon them to count the Dura-hooks as he removed them. The purpose for counting the Durahooks was to enable Dr. Nazar to ascertain that he had properly fulfilled his duty to remove all of them. It is inconceivable that, as the supervisor of the nurses during the surgery, Dr. Na-zar did not have the right to control their counting of thp “sharps”. The Court, in Hart, stated:
It is beyond cavil in this case that the accurate accounting for scalpel blades is “of mutual interest to both” the surgeon and the hospital, that such an accounting “effects their common purpose”, i.e., the cure of the patient, and that the surgeon issued no orders to operating staff in regard to the accounting for scalpel blades which conflicted with those of the Hospital. Consequently, the operating room staff acted as servants of both the surgeon and the hospital as a matter of law.
Id. at 817.
In its conclusion that the evidence was insufficient, even to warrant a jury instruction, the Majority observes that the nurses “made no mention of Dr. Nazar’s orders during the operation” and that Branham cited no evidence that Dr. Nazar ordered or instructed the nursing staff on how to assist him during the operation. Those facts simply indicate that he may have been deficient in his supervision of the nurses, but they in no way negate his role as their supervisor and their role as his agents during the surgery. I would submit that Dr. Nazar’s admissions resolve that issue in favor of Branham as a matter *610of law, but at a minimum, the matter should have been submitted to the jury.
CUNNINGHAM and NOBLE, JJ., join.