Citation. Darling v. Charleston community Memorial Hospital, 33 Ill. 2d 326, 211 N.E.2d 253, 1965 Ill. LEXIS 250, 14 A.L.R.3d 860 (Ill. 1965)
Powered by

Facts. Darling (Plaintiff) was taken to the emergency room in ~ Charleston community Memorial Hospital (Defendant) when he damaged his leg. The attending physician, Dr. Alexander (Defendant), set the break and put the leg in a cast. The following day, Plaintiff’s toes turned dark and cold. The actors was removed, however much of the organization in the leg had become necrotic from constriction led to by the cast. ultimately the reduced leg had actually to be amputated. Plaintiff carried suit versus Alexander (Defendant) and also Charleston (Defendant). after Plaintiff worked out with Alexander (Defendant), that tried the case against Charleston (Defendant). The jury went back a decision of $150,000.00. The court that appeals affirmed this, and also the can be fried Court of Illinois granted testimonial on the worry of whether or no a hospital might be hosted liable because that the negligence that its staff.

You are watching: Darling v charleston community memorial hospital

Issue. May a hospital it is in liable because that the negligence the its staff?


See more: How Did Renaissance Art Differ From Earlier Periods In Terms Of Painting Technique?

 Yes. A hospital might be liable for the negligence of its staff. over there is no fact to the idea the a hospital gives facilities only and does not insurance claim to act v its employee doctors and also nurses. modern hospitals carry out facilities and much more. They rental a big staff the doctors, nurses, administrators, and other workers, and are not cynical to collect fees for services performed at the hospital. A person goes come a hospital and also reasonably expects the hospital together an entity to treat him. Therefore, no legit basis exist for not holding a hospital vicariously responsible because that torts of its employed staff. In this case, the jury uncovered negligence through both Alexander (Defendant) in the measures he used, and the nursing employee in their follow-ups. This was thoroughly supported by the evidence. Affirmed.

Discussion. Doctors have actually traditionally been perceived by their hospitals together independent contractors. Under the common-law “independent contractor” rule, one use a contractor together opposed to an employee will certainly not it is in vicariously responsible for the contractor. This rule has been weakened in recent times in society in general, and in medication as well.