Darling Vs Charleston Medical Malpractice
Plaintiff causes of action
In this case, the plaintiff was Dorrence Darling’s father who was complaining on behalf of his son. The defendant in the case was Dr. John R. Alexander, and the Charleston community memorial hospital. Dorrence Darling was an 18-year-old college football player. On November 5, 1960, he broke his leg when he was playing a football game. Following the injury, he was taken to the emergency room at the Charleston hospital for treatment. Dr. Alexander was on duty that day and used a plaster cast on the injured leg. However, shortly after the plaster cast application, the plaintiff was in enormous pain, his toes were protruding out of the cast, swollen and dark; subsequently, his …show more content…
Thus, he asserts that the nurses were neglectful in failing to report the observed developments to the physician or the hospital. Hence, since the hospital is an accredited and licensed institution the licensing laws, accreditation standards, and the hospital’s bylaws define its duty to uphold ethical and care responsibilities. Thus, the infraction of such procedures imposes liability for the injury and damage the plaintiff suffered. Contrary, by trying to separate itself from its employed staff the defendant was only trying to avoid taking responsibility as opposed to denying claims of negligence or wrongdoing (The Law, …show more content…
It judged that a healthcare facility can be liable for the negligence of its staff. The nurses that were caring for the plaintiff failed to carry out tests for circulation in the patient’s leg as frequent as possible. It concluded that skilled medical nurses would have promptly discovered such problems and informed the attending physician on time, or reported to the hospital administration if the physician failed to react before it became irreversible. The court reasoned that the hospital had failed in its provision of skilled nurses for bedside care (Spivey and Smith, 2015). Moreover, the court argued that the hospital as a corporation was liable for negligent acts of its physicians and employees. The judge disproved of the hospital arguments by stating that there is no reality whereby the hospital only offers facilities, or argues that it does not act through its staff employees such as nurses and doctors. The court reasoned that a person goes to the hospital while reasonably expecting the facility as an entity to treat them (Furrow, 1981). Thus, it concluded that there is no lawful fundamental, which exists that prohibits holding a healthcare facility vicariously responsible for its employed staff