Capan v. Divine Providence Hospital

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• asserting that \[i]t would be absurd to require ... a patient to be familiar with the law of respondeat superior and so to inquire of each person who treated him whether he is an employee of the hospital or an independent contractor.\
• looking to Torts §429 and noting “a likelihood that patients will look to the institution rather than the individual physician for care”
• looking to Torts §429 and noting “a likelihood that patients will look to the institution rather than the individual physician for care”
• stating “It would be absurd to require ... a patient to ... inquire of each person who treated [the patient] whether he is an employee of the hospital or an independent contractor”
• stating \It would be absurd to require ... a patient to ... inquire of each person who treated [the patient] whether he is an employee of the hospital or an independent contractor\
• adopting the rule as set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts §429 (1965)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).