Beadles v. Metayka, s. 17806
| Decision Date | 27 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | 17807,Nos. 17806,s. 17806 |
| Citation | 135 Colo. 366,311 P.2d 711 |
| Parties | Robert O. BEADLES, Plaintiff in Error, v. John METAYKA, Defendant in Error. John METAYKA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Norma B. BOWLES and The Poor Sisters of St. Francis Seraph, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Ronald V. Yegge, James L. Treece, Denver, for plaintiff in error Robert O. Beadles.
John C. Young, John C. Young, Jr., James C. Cates, Colorado Springs, for John Metayka.
Murray, Baker & Wendelken, Colorado Springs, for defendant in error Poor Sisters of St. Francis Seraph.
Paul M. Clark, Lawrence M. Wood, Denver, for defendant in error Norma B. Bowles.
J. P. Nordlund, Denver, amicus curiae.
Two writs of error are before us, both arising out of the same judgments in the trial court, and which, pursuant to Rule 112(g), Rules of Civil Procedure Colo., are consolidated for consideration upon the same record and transcript. We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court or by name. Metayka was plaintiff. One of the defendants, Dr. Beadles, was the surgeon. Another physician, defendant Dr. Norma Bowles, was the anesthetist. The other defendant, The Poor Sisters of St. Francis Seraph Hospital, will be referred to as the hospital.
The action was for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a fall from an operating table in the defendant hospital in Colorado Springs. The plaintiff had submitted himself for surgery and his attending physician whom he had chosen to perform the operation was Dr. Beadles. Although Dr. Bowles, the anesthetist, submits a statement for services direct to the partient and is expected to be paid directly by the patient, her services were obtained by Dr. Beadles. The method of selection and the fact that the plaintiff did not meet or know the anesthetist is immaterial to the matters in issue here.
The accident occurred after the plaintiff had been placed on the operating table and had been rendered unconscious by anesthetic. There is little or no dispute as to the chronology of the events. The plaintiff had been on his back after being administered the anesthetic, and Dr. Bowles was engaged in checking respiration, pulse and other related matters concerning the condition of the patient and making a record thereof. An orderly, whose name does not appear in the record, was at the foot of the operating table, and the anesthetist was at the patient's head. Dr. Beadles entered the room and, although not being fully gowned and requiring a nurse to tie his gown, gave orders to place the patient on his side, which the orderly proceeded to do. The orderly was holding the plaintiff by the hips in the position as directed when he was then told to 'get a strap' or 'strap the patient.' Whereupon the surgeon turned to have his gown tied, and the anesthetist turned her head and began making entries on the chart. The orderly left the side of the operating table to get the strap as directed. The patient then fell to the floor and was injured.
The jury returned a verdict in the sum of $10,757.45 against the surgeon. Verdicts in favor of the defendant Bowles and defendant hospital were also returned by the jury. Dr. Beadles seeks reversal of the judgment against him (No. 17806) and the plaintiff seeks to reverse the verdicts in favor of the other two defendants (No. 17807).
Among the contentions of defendant Beadles, in addition to the assertion that he himself was not negligent, are: 1. That the patient was in charge of the anesthetist and the orderly when the accident occurred; 2. that the orderly was an employee of the hospital over whom the surgeon exercised no control, and 3. that the anesthetist was an independent contractor whose services were paid for by the patient, and that if either the orderly or anesthetist or both were negligent he could not be held liable for such negligence. Defendant Beadles admits that as the chief surgeon he was in command during the operation, but contends that his responsibility did not begin until the start of the operation. Another contention is that under the doctrine of respondent superior in the absence of a master-servant relationship, he cannot be held liable.
Under the evidence and under the instructions, the jury could have found all three defendants were negligent, and could have rendered a verdict against them jointly. On the other hand there was evidence that the anesthetist, under the prevalent practice, had the duty of making the chart entries and of necessity would have to divert her attention from the patient. There is evidence in the record that the orderly was acting on specific orders of the doctor to 'get a strap' which, if believed by the jury, would support a finding that the orderly had done nothing more than obey the orders of the surgeon in charge. Since the triers of the facts resolved the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Voss v. Bridwell
...Pa. 355, 65 A.2d 243; Com. to Use of Orris v. Roberts et al., 1958, 392 Pa. 572, 141 A.2d 393, 71 A.L.R.2d 1124; and Beadles v. Metayka, 1957, 135 Colo. 366, 311 P.2d 711. Vicarious liability is discussed in Prosser, Law of Torts, 2nd Ed., Ch. 12, p. It is the contention of Davies that the ......
-
Carpenter v. Young By and Through Young
...and supervision during surgery. See, e.g., Adams v. Leidholt, 195 Colo. 450, 453, 579 P.2d 618, 620 (1978); Beadles v. Metayka, 135 Colo. 366, 370-71, 311 P.2d 711, 713-14 (1957).3 In addition to a final decision, collateral estoppel also requires that the issue decided in the prior adjudic......
-
Colo. Med. Soc'y v. Hickenlooper, 11CA1005.
...for the negligence of hospital employees under the surgeon's control and supervision during surgery.”); Beadles v. Metayka, 135 Colo. 366, 370–71, 311 P.2d 711, 713–14 (1957).¶ 53 The Doctors are correct that this doctrine only applies when the surgeon has the right to supervise and control......
-
Franklin v. Gupta
...and control. As in McConnell, the rhetoric often tends to obscure the factual underpinning of the holding. 7 See Beadles v. Metayka, 135 Colo. 366, 311 P.2d 711 (1957). To the extent that the doctrine is regarded as an expansion of the traditional borrowed servant rule, most courts have eit......