HOSPITALS AND PATIENTS

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 231, 29 September 1928, Page 1 (Supplement)

HOSPITALS AND PATIENTS

CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES.

PERSONAL RESPONStBILITES.

(Bv PERITUS.t

A very ?mall proportion of persons, who feel that they have been neglected, or wrongly treated, in hospital, nursing home or by a private practitioner, take legal action to recover damages or publicly voice their sense of injury. Many do not know their rights; other* fear failure; some would avoid expense, and others again ?a,v, "What is the use of making a fuss. The thing cannot anyhow be undone." The law, however, 13 for the protection of the individual as well a 9 for the mass, and an appeal to the law ie often advisable to prevent a recurrence of a wrong. It must be proved that anyone causing on injury, by omission or commission, is in some way culpable, that he intended damage i or caused damage by not using a proper amount of care, and the standard of care .is ordinary prudence in Ihe circumstances. If a hospital official -contracts to do anything, the hospital is liable for damages if the contract is not kept, that is, if he acts under hospital authority. If independently, he himself alone is liable. If a hospital agrees (by contract real or implied) to give certain services and fails to give them, or is not competent, it is liable. Hospital May Be Liable.

Accepting the charity of a hospital does not destroy the right to claim damages for injury or neglect. It is necessary to define what constitutes neglect, of which there are no legal degrees. It is the omission of a duty which must be shown to have existed at the time. If an injury is done it may be due to the action of the doer, or perhaps more rightly due to the one who has counselled, advised or directed the act, and who is therefore liable. A hospital is expected to give at least the best services that facilities and the medical knowledge of the local community afford. The better the hospital, the greater the responsibility. A genuine mistake in medical judgment cannot create liability. There must be a proof of negligence, lack of care. A surveyor undertakes to bring to his task a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill. He is not liable because somebody else might have done better. A less degree of skill will support an action for damages, and the question whether the accused is or is not a qualified practitioner is not material to the issue. It is not just to assume that a surgeon would tell an untruth to protect his reputation, but in the eyes of laymen it is better for him to leave it to be thought that what he did lie believed to be best, rather than admit, an error. Results seem to show that commonly judges extend sympathy to the surgeon, juries support the patient.

The question of liability for injury in a public hospital depends very largely upon the relationship between the governing body and the members of the staff. In some cases the governing body (the board' is liable, in others one or more, of the officers of the institution. A >urgeon ordered a hot bath. The nurse scalded the patient. It was held that the surgeon was not liable, because it was usual for the nurses to see to the baths. Charity anfi Injury.

j Lability is incurred by a competent! priii?;itioner by want of care, as neglecting a patient after confinement, and an action for incompetence is allowable. For criminal acts the person alone is responsible. but in civil actions the hospital may be liable, because a master is responsible for the actions of servants; a servant being one who is subject to control of an employee, in respect to the manner in which his work is to be done. In a hospital there are three classes of servant.-, doctors, nurses and the nonprofessionals. Honorary officials are not directly subject to control and are personally responsible to patients. A medical superintendent is a servant in the legal sense, but has been held to i>c personally responsible as a profes- ► ional man. In one case the house officer broke the tooth of a patient, the piece was drawn into the windpipe and pneumonia followed. The doctor was. held as personally liable. The hospital board is liable for acts of nurses done under board control, otherwise., nurses rank as do doctors in personal liability. The board is supposed to guarantee tne competence of its medical stall and unless it fails in this respect is not liable for professional errors. There is no legal distinction made between those who pay for medical services and those who "do not in the freedom to claim damages for injury or neglect. In all cases the uncertainty of a verdict has to be considered before action.