Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Doctrine
062111
are
employees of the hospital and is borrowed by the surgeon
during surgeries. If the nurse makes a mistake in the operating
room, the surgeon would be held liable in accordance with the
next doctrine.
Art. 2180 New Civil Code. The obligation imposed by article 2176
is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but also from
those of persons from whom one is responsible.
1. The
Dr. Orlino Hosaka as the head of the surgical team. As the socalled "captain of the ship," 73 it is the surgeon's responsibility to see to
it that those under him perform their task in the proper manner.
Respondent Dr. Hosaka's negligence can be found in his failure to
exercise the proper authority (as the "captain" of the operative team) in
not determining if his anesthesiologist observed proper anesthesia
protocols .
2. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor - Doctrine of common knowledge
1. The
3. The illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the
2. That the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under
3. That the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action
1. Extent of Control
2. Kind of occupation
3. Skill required in the particular occupation
4. Whether or not one is work is distinct
5. Whether or not instruments or tools were provided by employer
6. Length of time
7. Method of payment
8. Work is part of regular business of the employer
9. Belief by the parties
10. Whether the principal is or is not in business.
for honest
mistakes of judgment . . . (G.R. No. 122445 November 18, 1997
DR. NINEVETCH CRUZ, petitioner, v. CA and LYDIA UMALI,
respondents.)
G.R. No. 118231 July 5, 1996 DR. VICTORIA L. BATIQUIN and ALLAN
BATIQUIN, petitioners, vs. CA
Of course, the Court is not blind to the reality that there are times
when danger to a patients life precludes a surgeon from further
searching missing sponges or foreign objects left in the body. But this
does not leave him free from any obligation. Even if it has been shown
that a surgeon was required by the urgent necessities of the case to
leave a sponge in his patients abdomen, because of the dangers
attendant upon delay, still, it is his legal duty to so inform his patient
within a reasonable time thereafter by advising her of what he had
been compelled to do.
Dr. Ampil did not inform Natividad about the missing two pieces of
gauze. Worse, he even misled her that the pain she was experiencing
was the ordinary consequence of her operation. Had he been more
candid, Natividad could have taken the immediate and appropriate
medical remedy to remove the gauzes from her body. To our mind,
what was initially an act of negligence by Dr. Ampil has ripened into a
deliberate wrongful act of deceiving his patient.
3. Doctrine of contributory negligence
Art. 2179 NCC. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the
immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover
damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate
and proximate cause of the injury being the defendants lack of due
care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the court shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded.
Effect of Contributory Negligence of Plaintiff:
2. If the proximate cause was still the negligence of the defendant, the
plaintiff can still recover damages, but the amount of damages will be
mitigated due to his contributory negligence
*Simply put, if the effect is caused directly by the patients negligence, he
cannot claim money for damages. But if the direct cause is the doctors
Transcribed by: KC
negligence but with contribution by the patients negligence, the patient can
still claim money but its lessened.
4. Doctrine of continuing negligence
*This means that the injury caused by negligence is not instantaneous and
requires time before it appears but is CORRECTABLE. Doctor will not be held
liable if he treats this early on.
*Due diligence = early intervention and prompt action NO INJURY
5. Doctrine of assumption of risk
*This means that the first one who is negligent and caused the injury is the
patient. The doctor will not be held liable in this case if he/she treats this
immediately in every way possible so injury can be avoided.
*Example is when a car overtakes and hits the car on the opposite lane. The
overtaking car can claim for damages if there is a shoulder because the
shoulder is the last clear chance of the other car to avoid the accident.
7. Doctrine of Foreseeability
*Applicable to avoiding complications by anticipating that it will happen and
by preparing contingency measures.
*Example of this is a psych patient who is on high suicide risk. Since it is
understood that the patient will find ways and means to kill himself,
providing an isolation room with a safe environment and maintenance of
medications can help prevent the patient from killing himself
KCs notes
END OF TRANS
Transcribed by: KC