Captain of the ship doctrine

Last updated

Captain of the ship doctrine is the legal doctrine which holds that, during an operation in an operating room, a surgeon of record is liable for all actions conducted in the course of the operation. [1] The doctrine is a form of the "borrowed servant doctrine", in which a party usually liable for his, her, its, or their actions is absolved of responsibility when that "borrowed servant" is asked to do something that is outside of the bounds of policy. [2]

Contents

History

The doctrine was coined in McConnel v. Williams, 361 Pa. 355, 65 A.2d 243, 246 (1949), in which the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that, "it can readily be understood that in the course of an operation in the operating room of a hospital, and until the surgeon leaves that room at the conclusion of the operation... he is in the same complete charge of those who are present and assisting him as in the captain of a ship over all on board, and that such supreme control is indeed essential in view of the high degree of protection to which an anesthetized, unconscious patient is entitled...". [3]

The doctrine emerged in 1949 and was popular in the 1950s, but the application of this doctrine declined as patients who suffered a tort sued under the charitable immunity doctrine. [4]

In the 21st century, consistent with the Supreme Courts of multiple states, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin declined to adopt the doctrine. [4] Although the doctrine has been deemed "anachronistic", a "prostrate doctrine" and "indiscriminate repetition", among other things, the phrase remains in current usage. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine in the Anglo-American common law and Roman Dutch law that says in a tort or civil lawsuit a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. Although modern formulations differ by jurisdiction, Anglo-American common law originally stated that the accident must satisfy the necessary elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. In res ipsa loquitur, the elements of duty of care, breach, and causation are inferred from an injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine whereby a sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, strictly speaking in modern texts in its own courts. A similar, stronger rule as regards foreign courts is named state immunity.

A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things. The word 'tort' stems from Old French via the Norman Conquest and Latin via the Roman Empire.

Respondeat superior is a doctrine that a party is responsible for acts of their agents. For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their employment. This rule is also called the master-servant rule, recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.

<i>Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital</i>

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, was a decision issued by the New York Court of Appeals in 1914 which established principles of respondeat superior in United States law.

Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea to comprise the elements of guilt. Causation only applies where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with regard to inchoate offenses.

In the English law of tort, professional negligence is a subset of the general rules on negligence to cover the situation in which the defendant has represented him or herself as having more than average skills and abilities. The usual rules rely on establishing that a duty of care is owed by the defendant to the claimant, and that the defendant is in breach of that duty. The standard test of breach is whether the defendant has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. But, by virtue of the services they offer and supply, professional people hold themselves out as having more than average abilities. This specialised set of rules determines the standards against which to measure the legal quality of the services actually delivered by those who claim to be among the best in their fields of expertise.

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

Judicial immunity is a form of sovereign immunity, which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions.

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

Charitable immunity is a legal doctrine which holds that a charitable organization is not liable under tort law. It originated in 19th-century Great Britain.

Nullum tempus occurrit regi, also abbreviated to nullum tempus, is a common law doctrine.

Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Sovereign immunity in the United States Legal protection of Federal, State and Indian Tribal governments

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.

<i>Byrne v. Ireland</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Byrne v. Ireland (1972) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Ireland that is important because it abolished the immunity of the state in tort, meaning that the state could be sued for the actions of its servants. The case also determined that the Attorney General was the appropriate party to represent the state in these tort cases.

Ending Qualified Immunity Act Proposed United States legislation

The Ending Qualified Immunity Act is a proposed United States Act of Congress first introduced in 2020 by Justin Amash (L-Michigan) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) to end qualified immunity in the United States. Qualified immunity shields police officers and other government officials from being held personally liable for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity unless their actions violate "clearly established" federal law, a precedent requiring both that those actions violate written law and that there be a judicial precedent establishing that such actions are unlawful.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does."

<i>Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held, in a 5–4 decision, that a private corporation may be liable under Canadian law for breaches of customary international law committed in other countries.

References

  1. ↑ Blumenreich, Gene A. "Captain of the Ship" (PDF). Legal Briefs. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-09-19. Retrieved 2013-08-25.
  2. ↑ Scott, Edwin L. "Agency - Borrowed Servant Doctrine - Surgeon Is Responsible for the Pre-Operative Negligence of Anesthetist".
  3. ↑ Capule, Rodel V. "A Surgeon Is Not Always the "Captain of the Ship"" (PDF). Philippine Journal of Internal Medicine.[ permanent dead link ]
  4. 1 2 3 Murphy, E. K. (2001.) ""Captain of the ship" doctrine continues to take on water", AORN J, 74(4):525-8.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.