 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
ELLIS BY ELLIS v. NILES11/12/1996
that the orotracheal intubation attempts caused the patient to suffer a greater degree of paralysis than he otherwise would have. Respondent alleges Dr. Bynoe and Dr. Niles had a legal duty as leaders of the trauma team to personally respond to the trauma alert, and to personally oversee the patient's treatment, and that their breach of this duty renders them liable for any negligence inflicted upon the patient by someone beneath them in the trauma team's chain of command. Respondent rests her claim on the "captain of the ship" doctrine.
Whether the law recognizes a particular duty is an issue of law to be determined by the court. See e.g., Mickle v. Blackmon, 252 S.C. 202, 166 S.E.2d 173 (1969). If there is no duty, then the defendant in a negligence action is entitled to a directed verdict. Rogers v. South Carolina Department of Parole and Community Corrections, 320 S.C. 253, 464 S.E.2d 330 (1995); cf., Roberts v. Hunter, 310 S.C. 364, 426 S.E.2d 797 (1993) (doctor entitled to directed verdict in a
Respondent cites no authority for her proposition that all members of a trauma team are required to respond to every trauma alert and to undertake the care of every designated trauma patient, and we decline to impose such a legal duty upon the individual members of the team. For example, such a ruling would impose an impossible duty on the team members in cases of mass disaster when the number of trauma patients exceeded the number of trauma team members. We are not prepared to extend duty to this extreme.
In any case, respondent's reliance on the now largely discredited "captain of the ship" doctrine is misplaced. In its purest form, this doctrine imposed vicarious liability on the operating surgeon for the negligence of any person assisting in the operation. See Price, The Sinking of the "Captain of the Ship", 10 J. Legal Med. 323 (1989). Even if we were to recognize this theory, it would not afford respondent any
Respondent has not convinced us of the necessary legal predicate for the imposition of liability, that is, the existence of a duty owed by petitioners to the patient. The trial judge properly directed a verdict for the petitioners. Accordingly, we vacate the Court of Appeals' opinion, and affirm the circuit court's judgment.
VACATED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.
MOORE, WALLER and BURNETT, JJ., and DENNIS R. MARKLEY Jr., Acting Associate Justice, concur.
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|