| Venue: |
Florida District Court of Appeal
|
|
| Facts: |
Roessler has a perforated viscus. He gets some radiology work done,
at the hospital where he is admitted (Sarasota Memorial), and the
doctor (Lichtenstein) makes only a partial diagnosis, leading
to troubles for Roessler. |
|
| Posture: |
Sarasota asserts that the radiology department was a separate firm,
and therefore Sarasota is not at fault. The trial court agrees,
and grants summary judgment. |
|
| Issue: |
Did Sarasota Memorial satisfy its burden to show that there was no
genuine issue of material fact regarding vicarious liability? |
|
| Holding: |
No. Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Rule: |
A principal may be held liable for the acts of its agent within
the course and scope of agency. Apparent agency exists if
- The principal represents that there is agency
- A third party relies on that representation
- That reliance produces a change in position
|
|
| Reasoning: |
Whether the radiology department had apparent agency is a question
for the jury: there are lots of reasons to think that at least
one of the three requirements might not be fulfilled. Maybe
all three, in fact. |
|
| Dicta: |
Concurrance: We want predictable rules, and efficiency; maybe it's
time simply
to specify in statute whether hospitals are vicariously liable,
so we don't have to keep re-doing all of this. |
|