Question

a doctor in a university of chicago hospital seriously assaulted a patient in an examining room. the patient sued the hopsital on the theory that the doctor was an agent or employee of the hopsital and thr assalt occured within the hospital. is the hospital liable for the acts of its agent? why?

Answer 1

A contract made by an agent on behalf of the principal legally binds the principal. Three types of authority may bind the principal: (1) express authority—that which is actually given and spelled out, (2) implied authority—that which may fairly be inferred from the parties’ relationship and which is incidental to the agent’s express authority, and (3) apparent authority—that which reasonably appears to a third party under the circumstances to have been given by the principal. Even in the absence of authority, a principal may ratify the agent’s acts.

The principal may be liable for tortious acts of the agent but except under certain regulatory statutes may not be held criminally liable for criminal acts of agents not prompted by the principal.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal is generally liable for acts by a servant within the scope of employment. A principal usually will not be held liable for acts of nonservant agents that cause physical damage, although he will be held liable for nonphysical torts, such as misrepresentation.

So in this case the hospital is not liable for doctor's assaulting of any patient because it is not in the scope of employment. Al