Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,636 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| |  Please explain respondeat superior
...and how it differs from corporate liability. I was reviewing some legal nursing material and it says that corporate liability applies if a hospital's policy re budget, staff, and client population results in injury to the patient (i.e. from understaffing); therefore, as long as the nurse acted according to the hospital's policy, the hospital, not the nurse, is liable.
I always thought that a nurse could still be held personally liable for carrying out duties under ANY hospital policy that the nurse, in his/her professional judgment, knew to be a potential risk for injury to the patient.
Thanks.
 Search Tags None  | 
| | Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 1 | 
Aug 13, 2005, 05:21 PM
Example, you were caring for the patient, a CT was ordered, it could not be done because the machine was down, there is nothing that you could do about it, nor could you be held accountable for it. The hospital could for not transferring the patient to another facility if it was indeed warranted to be done then. Nothing about your nursing would have anything to do with this.
The hospital is the one that would take full responsibility.
| | No. 2 |
Aug 13, 2005, 06:12 PM
Originally Posted by Tony35NYC ...and how it differs from corporate liability. I was reviewing some legal nursing material and it says that corporate liability applies if a hospital's policy re budget, staff, and client population results in injury to the patient (i.e. from understaffing); therefore, as long as the nurse acted according to the hospital's policy, the hospital, not the nurse, is liable.
I always thought that a nurse could still be held personally liable for carrying out duties under ANY hospital policy that the nurse, in his/her professional judgment, knew to be a potential risk for injury to the patient.
Thanks.
The example that Suzanne gave you is correct.
But, you are correct as well. In some instances, if there is no policy or procedure in place for a something and the nurse continues to take care of the patient KNOWING that there should be a procedure to follow and the patient is harmed, then, yes, the nurse will be held liable.
| | No. 3 |
Aug 13, 2005, 06:16 PM
But, to clarify legally...... respondeat superior is:
The employer is held liable for harm done by agents and/or employees while acting within the scope of their agency or employment.
| | No. 4 |
Aug 13, 2005, 07:06 PM
| | No. 5 |
Aug 14, 2005, 02:22 PM
Hi
I can't answer your question, sorry. But noticed your into LNC? Can you tell me how you like it, how you got started and which program you used? If you have the time! Thanks!
Dawn Originally Posted by Tony35NYC ...and how it differs from corporate liability. I was reviewing some legal nursing material and it says that corporate liability applies if a hospital's policy re budget, staff, and client population results in injury to the patient (i.e. from understaffing); therefore, as long as the nurse acted according to the hospital's policy, the hospital, not the nurse, is liable.
I always thought that a nurse could still be held personally liable for carrying out duties under ANY hospital policy that the nurse, in his/her professional judgment, knew to be a potential risk for injury to the patient.
Thanks. | | No. 6 |
Aug 20, 2005, 08:15 PM
Respondeat Superior
Respondeat Superior is a latin term which essentially means that an employeer is legally responsible for his employee's negligent acts done within the scope of employment. However, as you already guessed, the employeer, if a judgement is rendered against him because of his employees negligence, can turn around and sue the employee for the same!
What is negligence? To prove medical negligence your must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 1. Duty 2. Breach of duty (failure to provide that standard of care that a reasonable nurse would provide under the same or similar circumstances) 3. Causation (legal and actual) and 4. Damages
I am an RN and a Certified Legal Assistant. I am not an attorney. I suggest that you contact an attorney with regard to this matter.  | | No. 7 |
Sep 16, 2005, 02:30 PM
Not totally clear to me that in the example discussed here, and as presented, the nurse caring for the client would be absolved.
If the RN believes there's a critical need for timely diagnostics, then it could be argued that he had a duty to report this up the chain promptly. If that was the case and he did that, then I'd agree there'd be no legal liability for the RN.
Just wanted to clarify.
| | No. 8 |
Sep 16, 2005, 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by LarryG Not totally clear to me that in the example discussed here, and as presented, the nurse caring for the client would be absolved.
If the RN believes there's a critical need for timely diagnostics, then it could be argued that he had a duty to report this up the chain promptly. If that was the case and he did that, then I'd agree there'd be no legal liability for the RN.
Just wanted to clarify.
I totally agree with you, Larry,
If the nurse taking care of a patient is following policy/procedure and KNOWS that a policy/procedure does NOT exist on a certain issue, and, does not report this, she/he can and probably will be held accountable.
It is not a defensible excuse to KNOW there should be a policy/procedure and not report.
| | No. 9 |
Sep 16, 2005, 07:40 PM
Siri / Iris -- Just checked your sign-off. Loved it!
You're funny!
|
| 375 members
2,577 guests 2,952
| 29 | | | 0 | | | 2 | | | 8 | | | 20 | | | 2 | | | 13 | | | 63 | | | 13 | | | 12 | |
| 41 | | | 1 | | | 13 | | | 2 | | | 9 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 16 | | | 16 | | | 39 | | | 14 | | | 20 | | | 23 | | | 19 | | | 24 | |
|
Nursing News