HOLLY DALE HOFMANN, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, WILBUR DALE HOFMANN AND WILBUR DALE HOFMANN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
DOROTHY W. BLACKMON, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM P. BLACKMON, M.D., 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.
A physician failed to timely diagnose tuberculosis in a father, who then transmitted the disease to his two-year-old daughter. The court held that a physician owes a duty to warn immediate family members of a contagious disease, even if the physician negligently failed to diagnose it, and reversed summary judgment dismissing the child's claims.
A physician owes a duty to a minor child who is a member of the immediate family living with a patient suffering from a contagious disease to inform those charged with the minor's well-being of the nature of the disease and precautionary steps to prevent transmission. This duty is not negated by the physician's negligent failure to become aware of the contagious disease.
[1] A physician owes a duty to a minor child, who is a member of the immediate family and living with a patient, to inform those charged with the minor's well-being of the na…
[2] A physician's duty to warn a minor child's caretakers about a contagious disease is not negated by the physician's negligent failure to discover the presence of the disea…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“once a contagious disease is known to exist a duty arises on the part of the physician to use reasonable care to advise and warn members of the patient's immediate family of the existence and dangers of the disease”
Establishes the general duty recognized in precedent that physicians must warn family members about contagious diseases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe father was examined, x-rayed, and treated by a physician for two years without the physician diagnosing tuberculosis. The minor child, age two, wa…
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.
This is an appeal from a partial summary judgment entered on behalf of the defendant. The facts stated in a light most beneficial to the plaintiffs are:
(a) Plaintiff/father was examined, x-ray-ed and treated by a physician for some two years without the physician diagnosing his condition as tuberculosis.
(b) Plaintiff/minor child, a two year old girl, was found to have tuberculosis of the spine and required extensive medical treatment.
(c) Plaintiff/father’s condition was then diagnosed as tuberculosis • and he also required medical treatment.
A suit was brought against the physician’s executrix in three counts. The first pertained to the father’s injuries resulting from the physician’s alleged negligence in failing to timely diagnose his condition. The remaining two counts pertained to the minor child’s injuries resulting from contracting tuberculosis from her father. The lower court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the second and third counts. We reverse.
The defendant concedes for the purposes of this appeal that she did not conclusively demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the physician negligently failed to diagnose tuberculosis in the father. She does contend the physician breached no duty owed to the minor child so as to permit recovery for the child’s injuries resulting from the alleged negligence and, therefore, the lower court correctly entered summary judgment.
It is recognized that once a contagious disease is known to exist a duty arises on the part of the physician to use reasonable care to advise and warn members of the patient’s immediate family of the existence and dangers of the disease. Wojcik v. Aluminum Company of America, 1959, 18 Mich.2d 740, 183 N.Y.S.2d 351; Davis v. Rodman, 1921, 147 Ark. 385, 227 S.W. 612; Skillings v. Allen, 1919, 143 Minn. 323, 173 N.W. 663; Edwards v. Lamb, 1899, 69 N.H. 599, 45 A. 480; 41 Am.Jur., Physicians and Surgeons, § 101; 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons § 48.
The defendant contends that such precedent does not apply in the instant case because the physician did not actually know of the existence of tuberculosis. To apply such logic would reward the doctor for failing to discover that which a finder of fact may determine was within his professional, ability to discover and, therefore, was his duty to discover. 23 Fla.Jur., Negligence, § 17.
We hold that a physician owes a duty to a minor child who is a member of the immediate family and living with a patient suffering’from a contagious disease to inform those charged with the minor’s well being of the nature of the contagious disease and the precautionary steps to be taken to prevent the child from contracting such disease and that the duty is not negated by the physician negligently failing to become aware of the presence of such a contagious disease.
Reversed and remanded with instructions that the lower court vacate the summary judgment entered on behalf of the defendant and conduct such further proceedings as are consistent herewith.
McCAIN and OWEN, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boynton v. Milton Burglass, M.D., 590 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…81, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1095, 84 L.Ed.2d [*450] 53, 64-65 (1985). Although Florida courts recognize that a physician owes a duty to warn members of a patient’s immediate family of the existence and dangers of a communicable disease, Hofmann v. Blackmon, 241 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied, 245 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1971), “[u]nlike a physician’s diagnosis, which can be verified by x-ray, surgery, etc., the psychiatrist cannot verify his diagnosis, treatment or predicted prognosis except by long-term follow…
-
Pate v. James B. Threlkel, M.D., 661 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1995)…nd ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., concurs in result only. . Pate’s husband alleged that his damages included, in addition to medical expenses, loss of his wife's support, attention, services, affection, and consortium. . See Hofmann v. Blackmon, 241 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert, denied, 245 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1971); Gill v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 337 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). . The facts of a particular case are not the only source that may give rise to a duty to avoid negligent acts.…
-
Werner v. Varner, Stafford & Seaman, P.A., 659 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 592 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1991). The only exception to the above-stated rule that had previously surfaced were cases dealing with readily identifiable third parties and contagious diseases. For instance, in Hoffman v. Bachman, 241 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970), cert. denied, 245 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1971), suit was brought on behalf of a child who had contracted tuberculosis from her father due to the alleged failure of the physi [*1310] cian to timely diagnose the father’s condition. On ap…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence