Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Lan, SLS '24 |

1 0

Back to briefs

Roessler v. Novak

(2003)

Florida District Court of Appeal - 858 So. 2d 1158

tl;dr:

A patient suffered complications after treatment by a doctor who was contracted to work at a hospital. The Court finds that the jury should decide whether the doctor is considered an agent of the hospital.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In Roessler v. Novak (2003), the Florida District Court of Appeal looked at a case where a hospital was being sued due to the alleged mistake of one of its radiologists, Dr. Richard Lichtenstein. The hospital had previously won the case, but the patient, Roessler, appealed, arguing that Dr. Lichtenstein was acting on behalf of the hospital when he made the error.

The main question was whether the hospital could be held responsible for Dr. Lichtenstein's actions under the legal concept of apparent agency. The court decided that the hospital could be held responsible since Dr. Lichtenstein was acting as an apparent agent when he provided services to Roessler.

Apparent agency is a legal principle that holds an organization responsible for the actions of its representatives within their apparent authority. The court used a three-part test to decide if an apparent agency relationship existed: (1) a representation made by the organization; (2) a third party relying on that representation; and (3) the third party changing their position based on that reliance. In this case, all three conditions were met.

This case is important because it shows how courts determine if an apparent agency relationship exists and how they protect patients who trust hospitals to provide proper medical care. It is a notable case in Florida law, with an opinion written by Judge Salcines.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Roessler v. Novak

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Roessler v. Novak case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingRoessler v. Novak case brief facts & holding

Facts:Plaintiff Roessler was diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening disease and...

Holding:The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Roessler v. Novak case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Roessler v. Novak | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: SALCINES, Judge.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves an appeal by Klaus Roessler against a summary final judgment in favor of Sarasota Memorial Hospital regarding the hospital's vicarious liability for the alleged negligent acts of a radiologist who provided services to Mr. Roessler. Mr. Roessler claimed that the hospital was vicariously liable for the radiologist's alleged negligence. The trial court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment, stating that the hospital was not liable for the radiologist's actions. The appeal concerns whether Sarasota Memorial hospital is responsible for the actions of its employees. The doctrine of apparent authority exists because a principal should not be allowed to deny the authority of an agent when they have allowed the appearance of authority and a third party has relied on it. In this case, Sarasota Memorial and the professional association of radiologists had entered into an independent contractor agreement.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Roessler v. Novak case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: ALTENBERND, Chief Judge
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The judge agrees with the precedent but believes that the use of apparent agency as a doctrine to determine a hospital's vicarious liability for the acts of independent contractors has been inefficient, unpredictable, and a source of avoidable litigation. The judge suggests that liability should either be broadened to the hospital as nondelegable duties or restricted to the independent contractor. The doctrine of apparent agency is not an efficient approach for attributing responsibility for torts in complex settings such as hospitals where multiple independent contractors are involved. The theory is inherently case-specific, requiring a representation by the principal and reliance by the plaintiff, making it difficult to establish predictable, general rules of liability.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Roessler v. Novak case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Roessler v. Novak case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Roessler v. Novak

Chat for Roessler v. Novak
brief-270
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.