holding "surgeons should no longer be presumed to enjoy the authoritative control of a master over all who assist merely because they are 'in charge' of the operation" and instead looking to respondeat superior and borrowed servant principles
How later courts described this case
- holding "surgeons should no longer be presumed to enjoy the authoritative control of a master over all who assist merely because they are 'in charge' of the operation" and instead looking to respondeat superior and borrowed servant principles
- discussing history of doctrine and holding that surgeon is not vicariously liable for negligence of nurse anesthetist simply because the surgeon is "in charge” of the operation
- “Absent evidence to the contrary, the original employer is presumed to retain the right of control.”
- "When a contract, written or oral, between two employers expressly provides that one or the other shall have right of control, solution of the [lent employee] question is relatively simple[.]" (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Meyer
dissenting.
Believing that the release of the nurse-anesthetist releaséd Dr. Miller as well, I respectfully dissent. I dissented in the case relied upon by the majority, Yates v. New South Pizza Ltd., 330 N.C. 790, 796 , 412 S.E.2d 666, 670 , reh’g denied, 331 N.C. 292 , 417 S.E.2d 73 (1992), and was joined in my dissent by Chief Justice Exum, the writer of the majority opinion here, and Justice Whichard. I shall not here repeat the contents of that exhaustive dissent but will simply refer the reader thereto. I continue to believe that Yates was wrongly decided, and I do not consider it too late for this Court to reexamine its holding in that case, which was decided by the narrow margin of one vote.