explaining difference between “corporate liability” asserted against institution itself and respondeat superior liability based on negligent actions of institution’s employees
How later courts described this case
- explaining difference between “corporate liability” asserted against institution itself and respondeat superior liability based on negligent actions of institution’s employees
- “Because the duty to uphold the proper standard of care runs directly from the hospital to the patient, an injured party need not rely on the negligence of a third-party, such as a doctor or nurse, to establish a cause of action in corporate negligence.”
- state-owned medical facility has sovereign immunity from claims of corporate negligence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I join the opinion authored by Madame Justice Newman, certainly the result, but I write separately to express my continuing opposition to this court’s creation of such a novel concept as “corporate liability,” which is in every sense of the term an anomaly to established concepts of liability under respondeat superior. I make reference to my dissenting opinion in Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330 , 591 A.2d 703 (1991).
NIX, C.J., joins this concurring opinion.