Baptist V. Sampson

1126 Words May 13th, 2013 5 Pages
Question: In Baptist v. Sampson, the Texas Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court that holding hospitals liable for the negligence of ER doctors should be a non-delegable duty. Explain why you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court. Under what theory can a hospital be held liable for the conduct of emergency room physicians who are independent contractors? You should be able to answer question three in no more than 2-3 pages. You need to discuss the theory of liability, what the appellate court held, what the Supreme court held...and why you believe one or the other is correct.
On March 23, 1990, Rhea Sampson went to the emergency room to get treated for a bite on her arm by an unidentified creature at the
…show more content…

Supreme Court Ruling
According to Chief Justice Phillips’s opinion, the plaintiff, Sampson, needed to raise “a genuine issue of material fact that defendant Hospital was vicariously liable under the theory of ostensible agency for an emergency room physician’s negligence.” For that reason, we grant the BMHS’s request for writ of error due to the failure that the plaintiff was unable to establish vicarious liability based on the facts that the hospital had taken the reasonable and necessary steps to show its patients that the practicing physicians at the hospital were not employees or agents of the hospital (Phillips, 1997). The Supreme Court will also hold that Sampson did not met her burden to raise a fact issue on each element of this theory against a hospital for the acts of an independent contractor emergency room physician as well as resolve a conflict in the courts of appeals holdings regarding its necessary elements. The Supreme Court discarded the doctrine that a hospital has a non-delegable duty to its emergency patients by granting a summary judgment in favor of a hospital due to the posted signs saying that the physicians were independent

More about Baptist V. Sampson

Open Document