Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:44:01.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hospital Responsibilities to the General Public

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2021

Extract

What is the responsibility of a hospital to protect the general public from an employee who may cause harm? Until recently, the answer to this question was simply “none“; hospitals were not seen as having any direct responsibility for the actions of employees. But this has changed, and the current trend is to hold a hospital directly responsible for the level of care received by its patients — the hospital must provide an ongoing system to monitor performance of employees as well as staff physicians.

But what about acts of employees outside the hospital? Does a hospital have any obligation to anticipate when one of its employees poses a threat not on the job? This was the question addressed in a recent case before a California appeals court.

Type
Ethical Dilemmas
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Of course, under the doctrine of respondeat superior (let the master answer) hospitals have traditionally been held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of employees performed in the normal scope and course of their duties.Google Scholar
2. See, e.g., Darling v. Charlestown Memorial Hospital, 211 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 1965).Google Scholar
3. Hooks v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 165 Cal. Rptr. 741 (App. 1980).Google Scholar
4. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976).Google Scholar