You are on page 1of 3

BATCH 2013

Requisites of Liability: 1. The employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another ; 2. The services are to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times; and 3. The illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him. 4. Execution against the employee is unsatisfied.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES OR DOCTRINES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE “Primum non nocere” Tort or Quasi-Delict - Article 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict. Essential Elements:

Employer-employee under Solis’ book 1. Damages suffered by the plaintiff 1. 2. Fault or negligence of the defendant 2. 3. The connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff 1. Doctrine of Vicarious Liability 5. a. Doctrine of Ostensible Agent (Qui approvat non reprobat”) b. c. Borrowed Servant Doctrine Captain-of-the Ship Doctrine 6. 7. 8. 9. Whether or not instruments or tools were provided by employer Length of time Method of payment Work is part of regular business of the employer Belief by the parties 3. 4. Kind of occupation Skill required in the particular occupation Whether or not one’s work is distinct Extent of Control

Principal (employer)

10. Whether the principal is or is not in business. Agent (employee) In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following elements are generally considered: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished ([G.R. No. 112877. February 26,1996.] SANDIGAN SAVINGS vs. NLRC ……… The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for the damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.………………..” “The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. The diligence of a good father referred to means the diligence in the selection and supervision of employees”

Patient Art. 2176 NCC. “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damages done….”

Art. 2180 NCC. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also from those of persons from whom one is responsible.

1 By: Fatima Anne M. Perez 

If the contributory negligence was the proximate cause of the accident there can be no recovery (Taylor v. and 3. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. .R. No.) 3.R. No.R.R. the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care. respondents. CA) Basis of Contributory Negligence: 1. That the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. They are not insurers against mishaps or unusual consequences.A. No. CA.]LI vs. contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered. 1990) “…the facts and circumstances accompanying an injury may be such as to raise a presumption. 1997 DR. July 16. 1996. KOH. 83491. 1992.….[G. No. Perez  . 2179 NCC. 1992]) 2. Doctrine of continuing negligence M. IAC([G. [G. No.”(Sangco) Applicability of the Rule “Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party. Honest errors of judgment as to appropriate procedure 4.Furthermore they are not liable for honest mistakes of judgment . Sec.R. C. As the sole tribunal to adjudge the physcian’s failure to fulfill his obligation to his patients is. February 7. CA and LYDIA UMALI. (Ma-ao Central Co.D. but the amount of damages will be mitigated due to his contributory negligence 4. and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have management use proper care. in most cases. Calculated risk 2. Meralco 16 Phil. 122445 November 18. IAC. it affords reasonable evidence. 1996. Bad result rule “Doctors are protected by a special rule of law. 117944. 68102. the plaintiff may recover damages. No. v. NINEVETCH CRUZ. 2. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor Doctrine of common knowledge Where the thing causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant. respondents. CA and LYDIA UMALI. The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent. They are not guarantors of care. NINEVETCH CRUZ.” (G. Aug 27. petitioner.R..]. 122445 November 18. his own conscience. petitioner. Doctrine of contributory negligence MCKEE vs. but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.]VALENZUELA vs.. v.) No injury Injury 2 By: Fatima Anne M. If the proximate cause was still the negligence of the defendant. “It is the act or omission amounting to want of care on the part of the person injured which. February 7. Where Rule not applicable: 1. Effect of Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff: 1. v. to permit an inference. But if his negligence was only contributory. II Code of Medical Ethics. 1”………. . 1997 DR.Inc.” 3.A. That the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence. 115024. or some other person who is charged with negligence. concurring with the defendant’s negligence. G.’s negligence Due diligence “….BATCH 2013 MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE Art.Inc. which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection. Mistakes in the diagnosis Art.R. They do not even warrant a good result.” [G. et..” (G. of negligence on the part of the defendant.8) 2. in the absence of explanation by the defendant. v. the plaintiff can still recover damages. al vs. he cannot recover damages. July 16. C. that the accident arose from want of care. is the proximate cause of the injury…” (Ma-ao Central Co. 68103.

that to which a person assents is not esteemed in law an injury . As the doctrine is usually stated. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a fellow-worker. unless it should be shown that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or supervision of the plaintiff’s fellow worker. 6. the employer shall not be answerable. the injured person is entitled to recovery (sic).BATCH 2013 MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE 7. END M. Doctrine of Last clear chance In Bustamante vs. a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident. Patient’s negligence Article 1712. notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that of a third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences of the accident. were inevitable. stated broadly. by exercising reasonable care and prudence.’s diligence No injury Injury 3 By: Fatima Anne M. p.. or which though foreseen. and an injury results. Doctrine of assumption of risk “The general principle underlying the defense in assumption of risk is that a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising from the negligent act or reckless conduct of the defendant can not recover for such harm” “Volenti non fit injuria” .one is not legally injured if he has consented to the act complained of or was willing that it should occur. 1986. Doctrine of Foreseeability 5. no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen. If a fellow-worker’s intentional or malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury. In other words. Torts and Damages.D. Except in case expressly specified by law. might have avoided injurious consequences to the plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence. 165). 4th Ed. is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears that the defendant. the doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position of peril.. Art. or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation. (Sangco. 1174. Perez  . Court of Appeals…. the latter and the employer shall be solidarily liable for compensation. or when the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk. The doctrine.