Jenkins S M
American College of Nurse-Midwives, Washington, DC 20006.
J Nurse Midwifery. 1994 Mar-Apr;39(2):98-106. doi: 10.1016/0091-2182(94)90017-5.
Lack of understanding of the legal concept of vicarious liability may underlie certain barriers to nurse-midwifery practice. Malpractice insurance surcharges, denial or restrictive limitation of clinical privileges, and physician "supervision" requirements may all be premised, at least in part, upon an assumption that physicians who work with, and hospitals that grant clinical privileges to, nurse-midwives will automatically be liable for any negligent actions or omissions of CNMs. This article examines the basis for such assumptions and, based upon research into the current case law on this subject, concludes that popular assumptions regarding physician/CNM or hospital/CNM vicarious liability are unfounded. According to the author's research, no reported cases exist to support that assumption. Vicarious liability arises from the relationship between two parties and is imposed solely on the basis of the relationship. An employer is almost always vicariously liable for the negligent actions or omissions of his employee. If a nurse-midwife is the bona fide employee of a hospital or physician, the latter will most likely be subject to vicarious liability. Absent of any employment relationship, however, such liability will not necessarily be imposed. Rather, the result will vary depending upon the facts of each case, and each professional's relative degree of fault would be determined upon the basis of his or her own actions.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
对替代责任这一法律概念缺乏理解，可能是助产护理实践面临某些障碍的潜在原因。医疗事故保险附加费、临床特权的拒绝授予或限制，以及医生“监督”要求，至少部分可能基于这样一种假设：与助产士合作的医生以及授予助产士临床特权的医院，将自动对助产士的任何疏忽行为或不作为负责。本文探讨了此类假设的依据，并基于对当前关于这一主题的判例法的研究得出结论：关于医生/助产士或医院/助产士替代责任的普遍假设是没有根据的。根据作者的研究，没有已报道的案例支持这一假设。替代责任源于双方之间的关系，并且仅基于这种关系而施加。雇主几乎总是对其雇员的疏忽行为或不作为承担替代责任。如果助产士是医院或医生的真正雇员，那么后者很可能会承担替代责任。然而，如果不存在任何雇佣关系，这种责任不一定会被施加。相反，结果将因每个案例的事实而异，并且每个专业人员的相对过错程度将根据其自身行为来确定。（摘要截选至250词）
