| Citation | [1951] 2 KB 343, [1951] 1 All ER 574 |
| Date of Argued | 1951 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Appellant | Cassidy |
| Respondent | Ministry of health |
| Bench | Somervell, Singleton and Denning, L.JJ. |
FACTS :
- The claimant, who was a patient in the defendant’s hospital, needed to set a bone in his wrist, but due to the negligence of a doctor, the fingers of his left hand became stiff during the operation.
- The claimant sued the defendant in the tort of negligence on the basis of vicarious liability.
ISSUE:
- The issue was the meaning of ‘servant’ in the context of vicarious liability.
- Whether an employer is legally liable for offenses committed by his ‘servants’ in the course of their employment.
ANALYSIS:
The claimant’s hand was operated upon. The operation was carried out carelessly, and as a result of which the condition of the claimant became very bad. The claimant sued the health authority in its capacity and under the doctrine of vicarious liability as the employer of the medical staff involved. The question arose whether there was a ‘master-servant’ relationship between the health authority and the surgeon. It was suggested by the Health Authority that a surgeon was not a ‘servant’ of his employer, and that his contract was a ‘contract for services’ and not a ‘contract of service’. The CA rejected the distinction, and decided that the health authorities in this case were ‘masters’ of people employed on a regular basis, despite the professional nature of their duties.
JUDGEMENT:
The Court of Appeal held that the doctor was indeed a servant of the hospital and the Ministry was vicariously liable, because the doctor was integrated into the health organisation.
Denning LJ said,
The reason why the employers are liable in such cases is not because they can control the way in which the work is done – they often have not sufficient knowledge to do so – but because they employ the staff and have chosen them for the task and have in their hands the ultimate sanction for good conduct, the power of dismissal.
He also noted, that where a patient selects the doctor, then the doctor will not be employed by a hospital.
This Article is written by Lovely Singh of Agra College Agra , Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
