DANIEL ROTHMAN, M.D., P.A., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
THOMAS HEBEBRAND AND HIS WIFE, OLIVE HEBEBRAND, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A principal whose liability rests solely on vicarious liability cannot be held liable if the agent is exonerated.
Plaintiffs sued a doctor and his professional association (P.A.) for medical malpractice. The jury found in favor of the doctor, but the P.A., which h…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Respondeat Superior cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Appellee plaintiffs sued Daniel Rothman and his professional association (P.A.) for medical malpractice. The P.A. appeals, arguing that because the jury found in favor of Dr. Rothman, and the P.A. was only vicariously liable, plaintiffs could not recover damages against the P.A. We agree and reverse.
The P.A., which defaulted, argues that the trial court erroneously refused to set that default aside after Dr. Rothman was exonerated of liability. Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530, 532 (Fla.1985)(“[W]hen a principal’s liability rests solely on the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal cannot be held liable if the agent is exonerated”). Arguing that its liability was only vicarious, based on the negligence of Dr. Rothman, the P.A. relies on a line of cases which are summarized in Days Inns Acquisition Corp. v. Hutchinson, 707 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Those cases hold that if the liability of a defaulting defendant is completely dependent upon the liability of a non-defaulting codefendant, a final judgment should not be entered against the defaulting defendant unless the codefendant has been found liable. See, e.g., Alls v. 7-Eleven Food Stores, Inc., 366 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(“defaulting defendant may take advantage of a defense which is common to all”).
Plaintiffs recognize that if the P.A.’s liability is only vicarious, judgment should not have been entered against the P.A., but argue that there were other reasons for the P.A. to be held liable, aside from the negligence of Dr. Rothman. This argument, which is being advanced by plaintiffs for the first time on appeal, is not sustained by the record.
We therefore reverse the judgment for damages against the P.A., as well as the cost of judgment which followed it. We affirm the cross-appeal.
WARNER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elena Laura Pessino Gomez Del Campo Bacardi v. Elena Gomez Del Campo Bacardi De Lindzon, 728 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…w denied, 531 So. 2d 167 (Fla.1988), this court distinguished Alls: “the [Alls ] court entered summary judgment for the defaulting defendant when it was apparent that the plaintiff could not recover damages from it.” See, e.g., Rothman v. Hebebrand, 720 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Mummery v. St. Augustine Humane Soc’y, Inc., 711 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). On rehearing, the Behar court explained that a defaulting defendant is entitled to relief from the default “in the event that the other defendants…
-
Molina v. Watkins, 824 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…is erroneous.); Buettner v. Cellular One, Inc., 700 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (when principal’s liability rests solely on respondeat superior, principal cannot be liable if agent is exonerated); See also, e.g., Rothman, M.D., P.A. v. Hebebrand, 720 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (physician’s professional association, which defaulted, could not be held liable for malpractice, where association’s liability was only vicarious and jury found in favor of physician); Keyes Co. v. Sens, 382 So. 2d 1273, 1275 (F…
Authorities Cited
- Bankers Multiple Line Ins. Co. v. Farish, 464 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1985)
- Alls v. 7-Eleven Food Stores, Inc., 366 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Days Inns Acquisition Corp. v. Hutchinson, 707 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)