Childs v. Weis case brief summary
440 S.W.2d 104 (1969)
CASE FACTS
Appellant victim filed an action against appellee doctor for injuries suffered by appellant's pregnant wife and for the death of their infant, which allegedly occurred due to being negligently refused emergency treatment while appellee was on call. The lower court granted summary judgment to appellee, holding that appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law against appellant. Appellant challenged this ruling, contending that the evidence raised questions of fact as to whether the doctor-patient relationship was established and whether appellee was negligent in refusing to treat wife and instructing her to go to Dallas, and that the nurse on duty acted as appellee's agent.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that appellee had no contractual doctor-patient relationship with appellant's wife and was under no duty to treat her, and that there was no evidence of an agency relationship between appellee and nurse such that appellee would have been liable for her treatment of appellant's wife.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment because appellee doctor sustained his burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of material, disputed facts and that appellant victim could not recover against him as a matter of law because appellee had no duty to treat appellant's wife and child.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
440 S.W.2d 104 (1969)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant victim
challenged the order of the District Court of Hunt County (Texas)
which granted summary judgment to appellee doctor in appellant's
action for personal injuries to his wife and for the death of their
infant child against appellee.CASE FACTS
Appellant victim filed an action against appellee doctor for injuries suffered by appellant's pregnant wife and for the death of their infant, which allegedly occurred due to being negligently refused emergency treatment while appellee was on call. The lower court granted summary judgment to appellee, holding that appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law against appellant. Appellant challenged this ruling, contending that the evidence raised questions of fact as to whether the doctor-patient relationship was established and whether appellee was negligent in refusing to treat wife and instructing her to go to Dallas, and that the nurse on duty acted as appellee's agent.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that appellee had no contractual doctor-patient relationship with appellant's wife and was under no duty to treat her, and that there was no evidence of an agency relationship between appellee and nurse such that appellee would have been liable for her treatment of appellant's wife.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment because appellee doctor sustained his burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of material, disputed facts and that appellant victim could not recover against him as a matter of law because appellee had no duty to treat appellant's wife and child.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment