CLYDE A. SNEAD, APPELLANT,
v.
LE JEUNE ROAD HOSPITAL, INC., APPELLEE
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.
In this medical malpractice case, the Florida appellate court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a hospital, rejecting the plaintiff's claims based on respondeat superior and negligent credentialing. The court held that the hospital had no liability under these theories where the plaintiff failed to establish active negligence by the hospital itself.
The court held that the hospital was not liable under respondeat superior or for negligence in permitting the physician to use the hospital's facilities, as the plaintiff did not establish active negligence on the part of the hospital causing the alleged injury.
“It is apparent that the appellant did not charge the hospital with active negligence causing the alleged injury, but bottomed its case principally upon the doctrine of respondeat superior and negligence in permitting the physician to use the facilities of the hospital.”
Establishes that the plaintiff's failure to allege active negligence by the hospital was dispositive to the court's affirmance of summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClyde Snead filed a tort action against Le Jeune Road Hospital and physician Chambers. The complaint against the physician alleged medical malpractice…
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 Active Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed an action sounding in tort against the appellee-hospital and the appellee, Chambers, a physician. The complaint against the physician was in the nature of medical malpractice. The complaint against the hospital was premised upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, and alleged negligence in the hospital permitting the physician to perform operations on its premises. A summary judgment was rendered in favor of the hospital. The cause against the physician is still pending in the trial court.
Upon review, the appellant urges error in the summary judgment in favor of the hospital, contending’ that the hospital was liable under one or both of the above theories,1 and relies heavily upon the recent cases of Holl v. Talcott, Fla. 1966, 191 So.2d 40; Scanlon v. Litt, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 553; Visingardi v. Tirone, Fla. 1967, 193 So.2d 601; Hoder v. Sayet, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 205 (opinion filed January 31, 1967). We have reexamined these authorities and others cited by the appellant and, on the state of the record and briefs before us, fail to find error in the entry of the instant summary final judgment. It is apparent that the appellant did not charge the hospital with active negligence causing the alleged injury, but bottomed its case principally upon the doctrine of respondeat superior and negligence in permitting the physician to use the facilities of the hospital. No error has been made to appear in these respects. See: Barfield v. South Highland Infirmary, 191 Ala. 553, 68 So,. *18030; Mayers v. Litow, 154 Cal.App.2d 413, 316 P.2d 351; Black v. Fischer, 30 Ga.App. 109, 117 S.E. 103; Stacy v. Williams, 253 Ky. 353, 69 S.W.2d 697; Carter v. Harlan Hospital, 278 Ky. 84, 128 S.W.2d 174; Johnson v. City Hospital Co., 196 N.C. 610, 146 S.E. 573; Penland v. French Broad Hospital, Inc., 199 N.C. 314, 154 S.E. 406; Gosnell v. Southern Ry. Co., 202 N.C. 234; 162 S.E. 569; Stewart v. Crook Sanatorium, 17 Tenn.App. 589, 69 S.W.2d 259; Kuglich v. Fowle, 185 Wis. 124, 200 N.W. 648.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the summary final judgment here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Insinga v. LaBELLA, 543 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1989)…l of this state, support its position, citing Beam v. University Hospital Building, Inc., 486 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Reed v. Good Samaritan Hospital Association, 453 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); and Snead v. Le Jeune Road Hospital, Inc., 196 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). Also supporting this view in an amicus curiae brief is the Florida Hospital Association which contends that extending the duty to hospitals for the benefit of patients who initially created a doctor-patient relationship through t…
-
Movielab, Inc. v. Davis, 217 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…preserved as a point on appeal. Therefore, the correctness of this ruling is not before this court. Williams v. Williams, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 488; Booker v. Lima, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 642; Snead v. LeJeune Road Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 179. It is noted that the attempted reply only sought to raise matters that went behind the judgment to the terms of the guaranty, which would not have been appropriate because the cause of action had been merged in the judgment. Sessions v. Stevens, Fl…
-
Cedars Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Ravelo, 738 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…leges at Cedars. It is well-established that a hospital is not liable for the acts of a physician who is an independent contractor. See Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596, 601 (Fla.1987); Snead v. Le Jeune Road Hosp., Inc., 196 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).1 Moreover, Florida law confines liability for a failure to obtain informed consent to medical practitioners. Florida’s Medical Consent Law, first enacted in 1975, lists the persons against whom there can be recovery for the fail…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1966)
- Vaughn v. Smith, 96 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1957)
- Bell Williams v. Williams, 172 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Hoder v. Maxwell M. Sayet, 196 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Scanlon v. Edward T. Litt, M.D., 191 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1966)