nondelegable duty doctrine in South Carolina

2011Does the nondelegable duty doctrine set forth in Simmons v. Tuomey Regional Medical Center, 341 S.C. 32 , *484 53, 533 S.E.2d 312, 323 (2000), preclude recovery by Colleton? 1 6.

2011Does the nondelegable duty doctrine set forth in Simmons v. Tuomey Regional Medical Center, 341 S.C. 32 , *484 53, 533 S.E.2d 312, 323 (2000), preclude recovery by Colleton? 1 6.

2018Co. v. Globe Commc'ns, Inc., 363 S.C. 385, 390 , 611 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2005) ("The general rule is that an employer is not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor."); Gary, 417 S.C. at 249 , 789 S.E.2d at 103 ("While it is difficult to define the exact circumstances under which a nondelegable duty will be found, a review of case law reveals that our courts' decisions regarding whether to apply the nondelegable duty doctrine are primarily grounded in public policy considerations."); Rock Hill Tel.

2018Co. v. Globe Commc'ns, Inc., 363 S.C. 385, 390 , 611 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2005) ("The general rule is that an employer is not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor."); Gary, 417 S.C. at 249 , 789 S.E.2d at 103 ("While it is difficult to define the exact circumstances under which a nondelegable duty will be found, a review of case law reveals that our courts' decisions regarding whether to apply the nondelegable duty doctrine are primarily grounded in public policy considerations."); Rock Hill Tel.

2018Co. v. Globe Commc'ns, Inc., 363 S.C. 385, 390 , 611 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2005) ("The general rule is that an employer is not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor."); Gary, 417 S.C. at 249 , 789 S.E.2d at 103 ("While it is difficult to define the exact circumstances under which a nondelegable duty will be found, a review of case law reveals that our courts' decisions regarding whether to apply the nondelegable duty doctrine are primarily grounded in public policy considerations."); Rock Hill Tel.

2018Co. v. Globe Commc'ns, Inc., 363 S.C. 385, 390 , 611 S.E.2d 235, 238 (2005) ("The general rule is that an employer is not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor."); Gary, 417 S.C. at 249 , 789 S.E.2d at 103 ("While it is difficult to define the exact circumstances under which a nondelegable duty will be found, a review of case law reveals that our courts' decisions regarding whether to apply the nondelegable duty doctrine are primarily grounded in public policy considerations."); Rock Hill Tel.

2016On the other hand, in Young v. South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, our supreme court held the circuit court erred in finding the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs (DDSN) liable for torts committed by an employee of a local board under the nondelegable duty doctrine. 374 S.C. 360 , 368, 649 S.E.2d 488 , 492 (2007).

2016On the other hand, in Young v. South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, our supreme court held the circuit court erred in finding the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs (DDSN) liable for torts committed by an employee of a local board under the nondelegable duty doctrine. 374 S.C. 360 , 368, 649 S.E.2d 488 , 492 (2007).

2000See Jackson v. Power, 743 P.2d 1376, 1385 (Alaska 1987) (holding that a general acute care hospital may not delegate its duty to provide physicians for emergency room care because the law imposes a duty on hospital to provide that health care); superseded in part by Alaska Stát. § 09.65.096 (2000); Irving v. Doctors Hosp. of Lake Worth, Inc., 415 So.2d 55, 59 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) (holding that jury should have been instructed on nondelegable duty doctrine, as well as apparent agency doctrine, when patient alleges malpractice by emergency room physician); Martell v. St.

2000Charles Hosp., 137 Misc.2d 980 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 342, 352 (Sup.Ct.1987) (suggesting New York would hold hospitals liable for the malpractice of independent emergency room physicians under the nondelegable duty doctrine).

2000Charles Hosp., 137 Misc.2d 980 , 523 N.Y.S.2d 342, 352 (Sup.Ct.1987) (suggesting New York would hold hospitals liable for the malpractice of independent emergency room physicians under the nondelegable duty doctrine).

2000See Strickland v. Madden, 323 S.C. 63, 70-71 , 448 S.E.2d 581, 585 (Ct.App. 1994) (hospital may be vicariously liable for negligent health care rendered by a physician who is not an employee of the hospital under doctrine of apparent agency; but plaintiff failed to show apparent agency where doctor was a private practitioner whose only connection to hospital was that he had staff privileges to admit patients); Shuler v. Tuomey Regional Medical Ctr., 313 S.C. 225 , 437 S.E.2d 128 (Ct.App.1993) (discussing apparent agency in negligence action against emergency room physician and hospital, but co

2000See Strickland v. Madden, 323 S.C. 63, 70-71 , 448 S.E.2d 581, 585 (Ct.App. 1994) (hospital may be vicariously liable for negligent health care rendered by a physician who is not an employee of the hospital under doctrine of apparent agency; but plaintiff failed to show apparent agency where doctor was a private practitioner whose only connection to hospital was that he had staff privileges to admit patients); Shuler v. Tuomey Regional Medical Ctr., 313 S.C. 225 , 437 S.E.2d 128 (Ct.App.1993) (discussing apparent agency in negligence action against emergency room physician and hospital, but co

2000See Jackson v. Power, 743 P.2d 1376, 1385 (Alaska 1987) (holding that a general acute care hospital may not delegate its duty to provide physicians for emergency room care because the law imposes a duty on hospital to provide that health care); superseded in part by Alaska Stát. § 09.65.096 (2000); Irving v. Doctors Hosp. of Lake Worth, Inc., 415 So.2d 55, 59 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) (holding that jury should have been instructed on nondelegable duty doctrine, as well as apparent agency doctrine, when patient alleges malpractice by emergency room physician); Martell v. St.