Scribd
Upload
12 views2 pages

Support

A 'contract for services' involves an independent contractor providing services without detailed direction, while a 'contract of service' establishes a master-servant relationship requiring obedience to orders. The doctrine of respondeat superior holds employers liable for the negligent acts of employees performed within the scope of their employment. This principle applies in nursing malpractice cases, where hospitals can be held responsible for the actions of their nurses.

Uploaded by

omariawesley90
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views2 pages

Support

A 'contract for services' involves an independent contractor providing services without detailed direction, while a 'contract of service' establishes a master-servant relationship requiring obedience to orders. The doctrine of respondeat superior holds employers liable for the negligent acts of employees performed within the scope of their employment. This principle applies in nursing malpractice cases, where hospitals can be held responsible for the actions of their nurses.

Uploaded by

omariawesley90
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

A ‘contract for services’ implies a contract whereby one party undertakes to render services

e.g. professional or technical services, to or for another in the performance of which he is not

subject to detailed direction and control but exercises professional or technical skill and uses

his own knowledge and discretion. (Independent contractor)

A ‘contract of service’ implies relationship of master and servant and involves an obligation

to obey orders in the work to be performed and as to its mode and manner of performance.

(Master-servant relationship

A. Respondeat Superior

The doctrine of respondeat superior, "let the master answer,"

imposes liability based on a master-servant relationship. The master

88. Utter, 160 W. Va. at 707, 236 S.E.2d at 216.

89. Katz, supra note 69, at 76.

90. Poor Sisters of St. Francis v. Catron, 435 N.E.2d 305, 308 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982).

91. Morris, supra note 32, at 123.

1308 [Vol. 90

18

West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 90, Iss. 4 [1988], Art. 10

https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol90/iss4/10

NURSING MALPRACTICE

(employer) can be vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his

servant (employee), as long as the act occurred while the servant

was acting within the scope of his employment. 92 Therefore, an employer physician or an employer
hospital may be liable for the negligence of a nurse for acts undertaken within the scope of the nurse's

employment. 93 The rationale behind this doctrine is that the employer, physician or hospital, is in the
best position to supervise and

direct the nurse within the scope of employment.9 4 The courts have

repeatedly recognized this basis for imputed liability. The "employer, the hospital, can be held
responsible for the negligence of

. . . [the] employee nurse pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat

superior.'95
93. Greenlaw, Liability for Nursing Negligence in the Operating Room, in 1982 LAW, MEDiCIcE

& HEALTH CARE 222.

94. S. CALLOwAY, NupsING & nTE LAw 61 (1985).

95. Fraijo, 99 Cal. App. 3d at 342, 160 Cal. Rptr. at 252; see also Norton, 144 So. 2d at 260

L Atkin ( ) - " D v S You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can would be
likely to injure your neighbour.

Claims for negligence can only be successful if the both the plaintiff & the type of injury were reasonably
foreseeable (likely to occur) to the defendant (Cartwheel example).

You might also like