Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

BATCH 2013

MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE

LEGAL PRINCIPLES OR DOCTRINES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Requisites of Liability:


CASE
1. The employee was chosen by the employer
Primum non nocere
personally or through another ;
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 preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict.
Essential Elements:
1. Damages suffered by the plaintiff
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant
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

a. Doctrine of Ostensible Agent


(Qui approvat non reprobat)
b.

Borrowed Servant Doctrine

c.

Captain-of-the Ship Doctrine

Principal (employer)

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.
Employer-employee under Solis book

1. Extent of Control
2. Kind of occupation
3. Skill required in the particular occupation
4. Whether or not ones work is distinct
5. Whether or not instruments or tools were provided
by employer

6. Length of time
7. Method of payment
8. Work is part of regular business of the employer
9. Belief by the parties

Agent (employee)

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.

10. Whether the principal is or is not in business.


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

Art. 2180 NCC. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is


demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also
from those of persons from whom one is responsible.

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.
..

(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 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

1
By: Fatima Anne M. Perez

BATCH 2013

MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE

MCKEE vs. IAC([G.R. No. 68102. July 16, 1992.]; KOH, et. al vs. Art. II Code of Medical Ethics, Sec. 1..
IAC;[G.R. No. 68103. July 16, 1992])
As the sole tribunal to adjudge the physcians failure to fulfill his
2. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor
obligation to his patients is, in most cases, his own conscience,
..
Doctrine of common knowledge
3. Doctrine of contributory negligence
Where the thing causes injury is shown to be under the
management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in
Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the
the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who
injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has
have management use proper care, it affords reasonable
suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required
evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that to conform for his own protection.
the accident arose from want of care. (Ma-ao Central Co.Inc. v.
[G.R. No. 115024. February 7, 1996.]VALENZUELA vs. C.A.
CA, G.R. 83491, Aug 27, 1990)
the facts and circumstances accompanying an injury may be [G.R. No. 117944. February 7, 1996.]LI vs. C.A.
such as to raise a presumption, to permit an inference, of
negligence on the part of the defendant, or some other person It is the act or omission amounting to want of care on the part
of the person injured which, concurring with the defendants
who is charged with negligence.(Sangco)
negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury (Ma-ao
Central Co.Inc. v. CA)
Applicability of the Rule
1. The accident was of a kind which does not
ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent;

Basis of Contributory Negligence:

Art. 2179 NCC. When the plaintiffs own negligence


was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory,
the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages,
3. That the injury suffered must not have been due to but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person
injured.
2. That the instrumentality or agency which caused
the injury was under the exclusive control of the person
charged with negligence; and

Where Rule not applicable:


1. Calculated risk
2. Bad result rule

Effect of Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff:


1. If the contributory negligence was the proximate
cause of the accident there can be no recovery (Taylor v.
Meralco 16 Phil.8)

Doctors are protected by a special rule of law. They


2. If the proximate cause was still the negligence of
are not guarantors of care. They do not even warrant a good the defendant, the plaintiff can still recover damages, but the
result. They are not insurers against mishaps or unusual
amount of damages will be mitigated due to his contributory
consequences. (G.R. No. 122445 November 18, 1997 DR.
negligence
NINEVETCH CRUZ, petitioner, v. CA and LYDIA UMALI,
respondents.)
3. Honest errors of judgment as to appropriate
procedure

4. Doctrine of continuing negligence


M.D.s negligence

4. Mistakes in the diagnosis

Due diligence

..Furthermore they are not liable for honest mistakes of


judgment . . . (G.R. No. 122445 November 18, 1997 DR.
NINEVETCH CRUZ, petitioner, v. CA and LYDIA UMALI,
respondents.)
No injury

Injury

2
By: Fatima Anne M. Perez

BATCH 2013

MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE

5. 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
- that to which a person assents is not esteemed in
law an injury
- one is not legally injured if he has consented to the
act complained of or was willing that it should occur.
Art. 1174. Except in case expressly specified by law, or when it is
otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the
obligation requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be
responsible for those events which could not be foreseen, or
which though foreseen, were inevitable.
6. Doctrine of Last clear chance
In Bustamante vs. Court of Appeals.. The doctrine, stated
broadly, is that the negligence of the plaintiff does not preclude
a recovery for the negligence of the defendant where it appears
that the defendant, by exercising reasonable care and
prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to the
Article 1712. If the death or injury is due to the negligence of a
plaintiff notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence. In other
fellow-worker, the latter and the employer shall be solidarily
words, the doctrine of last clear chance means that even
though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position liable for compensation. If a fellow-workers intentional or
of peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to malicious act is the only cause of the death or injury, the
recovery (sic). As the doctrine is usually stated, a person who employer shall not be answerable, unless it should be shown
has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, that the latter did not exercise due diligence in the selection or
notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or that of a supervision of the plaintiffs fellow worker.
third person imputed to the opponent is considered in law solely
responsible for the consequences of the accident. (Sangco, Torts
and Damages, 4th Ed., 1986, p. 165).
END
Patients negligence

M.D.s diligence

No injury
Injury

7. Doctrine of Foreseeability

3
By: Fatima Anne M. Perez