Crosby by Crosby v. Sultz
405 Pa. Super. 527, 592 A.2d 1337 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician does not owe a duty of care to protect third parties from injuries caused by a patient's driving when the accident was unforeseeable. A physician's duty is limited to treating their patient and reporting specific medical conditions to the state's transportation authority as explicitly required by statute, not to protect the general public from all potential harm a patient might cause.
Facts:
- James Jackson was a patient of Dr. Marvin Sultz, who treated him for a diabetic condition requiring regular monitoring and insulin.
- Dr. Sultz was aware of Jackson's diabetic condition.
- Jackson had no history of ever suffering a loss of consciousness or a syncopal attack as a result of his diabetes.
- On May 8, 1988, while operating a motor vehicle, Jackson allegedly suffered a temporary lapse of consciousness due to his diabetes.
- As a result of his loss of control over the vehicle, Jackson struck and severely injured Barbara Crosby and her children, Ryan, Shane, and Celina, who were pedestrians.
Procedural Posture:
- The Crosbys first instituted a suit against the driver, James Jackson.
- During discovery in that case, the Crosbys learned of Jackson's medical condition and his treatment by Dr. Sultz.
- The Crosbys commenced a separate action against Dr. Sultz in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (a state trial court).
- Dr. Sultz filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the Crosbys' amended complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained Dr. Sultz's preliminary objections and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
- The Crosbys, as appellants, filed a timely appeal of the dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court, with Dr. Sultz as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a physician owe a legal duty of care to third parties injured by a patient who experienced a sudden, unprecedented loss of consciousness while driving due to a diabetic condition that did not meet the statutory criteria for mandatory reporting?
Opinions:
Majority - Popovich, Judge
No. A physician does not owe a legal duty to third parties in this situation because the harm was not foreseeable. A physician's duty to third parties arises only in limited circumstances, and this case does not qualify. The court reasoned that for a duty to exist, the injury to the specific plaintiff must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions. Here, Jackson had no history of losing consciousness, so Dr. Sultz could not have foreseen this specific accident. The court distinguished this from cases involving communicable diseases (like DiMarco) where transmission is foreseeable. Furthermore, Jackson's condition did not meet the specific statutory criteria under Pennsylvania law (67 Pa. Code § 83.5) that would have required Dr. Sultz to report him to the Department of Transportation, as the regulations specified reporting for "unstable or brittle diabetes" only after a related syncopal attack. Imposing a broader duty would make physicians insurers of public safety, which is an unworkable and limitless standard.
Concurring - Del Sole, Judge
No. A physician's statutory duty to report certain medical conditions to the Department of Transportation does not create a private cause of action for third parties injured by the patient. Applying the Cort v. Ash test for implying a private remedy from a statute, the court found the criteria were not met. First, the statute was designed to benefit the public at large, not a specific class of plaintiffs. Second, there is no legislative intent to create such a remedy. Third, allowing private lawsuits would not necessarily be consistent with the legislative scheme, as reporting does not guarantee license revocation and many people drive with suspended licenses. Therefore, the failure to file a report cannot be the basis for third-party liability.
Concurring - Brosky, Judge
No. While agreeing that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, this opinion expresses concern over the policy implications of the majority's holding. The ability to legally operate a motor vehicle is a necessity for most people, and the threat of third-party lawsuits provides a strong incentive for physicians to comply with their statutory duty to report potentially unsafe drivers. By removing this incentive, the court's decision may lead to reduced compliance, thereby compromising the legislative goal of promoting highway safety. However, under the current legal framework, the complaint was properly dismissed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and limits the scope of a physician's duty to third parties in Pennsylvania, particularly concerning harms caused by patients with medical conditions that may impair driving. The court established that foreseeability is the key element and refused to extend the duty recognized in communicable disease cases (DiMarco) to the context of a stable, non-communicable illness. This ruling protects physicians from becoming de facto guardians of public safety, confining their third-party duties to specific, foreseeable risks and explicit statutory reporting mandates. The case serves as a crucial precedent for defining the boundaries of professional liability, emphasizing that a physician's primary duty is to the patient, not the public at large.
Unlock the full brief for Crosby by Crosby v. Sultz