No, the doctor can't be sued. The law requiring doctors to report bad drivers was created to help the government keep track of licenses, not to let accident victims sue doctors. Also, the bicyclist was a random stranger, not a specific person the doctor could have predicted would be harmed. If doctors could be sued by anyone their patients might hurt, their liability would be endless.

Yes, the doctor should be held responsible. The whole reason for the reporting law is to protect people on the roads. The doctor had a clear duty to report a dangerous driver and failed. This failure directly led to a preventable death. Anyone on the road, including a bicyclist, is a foreseeable victim of a driver who can't see.

No, a doctor is not responsible for accidents caused by their patients, even if the doctor doesn't report the patient's bad eyesight to the government like they're supposed to. The law about reporting is meant to help the government make decisions about driver's licenses, not to make doctors responsible for protecting everyone from their patients. 

The law uses doctors to report medical problems to help the government, not to protect the general public from what patients might do. The court doesn't want to assume the law means to let people sue doctors unless it's really clear that's what the law intends. 

Lynn Witthoeft wasn't someone the doctor should have expected his patient might hurt. Courts usually don't make professionals responsible for protecting the public from other people's actions, unless there are special circumstances.

Yes, an eye doctor should be held responsible if their patient causes an accident because the doctor didn't report the patient's poor eyesight to the government like they were supposed to. The law requiring doctors to report these things was clearly meant to protect the public from unsafe drivers.

A doctor's duty to report medical conditions that affect driving isn't just to help the government - it's to let the government know about drivers who might be dangerous to themselves or others because of their medical problems. It makes sense that a doctor should be responsible to someone who gets hurt because the doctor didn't report their patient's bad eyesight.

Just like in another case where a doctor was responsible for not warning a patient about spreading Hepatitis B, Dr. Kiskaddon had a clear legal duty to report Ms. Myers' eyesight but didn't do it. In both cases, the law was meant to protect other people.

According to the test, to determine whether a statute creates a private cause of action a court must investigate (1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted;(2) whether there is any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one; and (3) whether it is consistent with the …

The court analyzed whether "a physician may be held liable for injuries suffered by a third party in an automobile accident caused by the physician's patient."

—the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to extend a physician's duty to unidentified and unknown third persons or the public at large, especially where the physician did not cause or aggravate the underlying medical condition.

"The violation of a statute and the fact that some person suffered harm does not automatically give rise to a private cause of action in favor of the injured person. This court will not engraft a private cause of action onto the statute without further guidance from the General Assembly."

In context, the Court's statement that the plaintiff's decedent was "not a foreseeable victim that this court will recognize,"

That clear intent distinguishes this case from Estate of Witthoeft, where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to find an implied right of action because the legislature did not create the Motor Vehicle Code provision at issue for the special benefit of the injured plaintiff.

—an ophthalmologist failed to inform either his patient or the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation of the patient' s poor visual acuity, and the patient later injured the plaintiff while driving.

We accept as true all material facts as set forth in the complaint, as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom.

At some point it must stop and I would draw the line in this area of the law with what is expressed by the court in this case—no further.

Generally, our Courts have been reluctant to impose a duty to protect a member of the general public from the harmful acts of third parties, in the absence of special circumstances.

No, a physician does not owe a duty of care to a third party under these circumstances. First, the Motor Vehicle Code's reporting requirement does not expressly or implicitly create a private cause of action for a physician's failure to report. Applying the Cort v. Ash test, the court found no legislative intent to create a private remedy, that such a remedy would be inconsistent with the administrative purpose of the statute, and that the injured party was a member of the general public, not a member of a class for whose 'especial' benefit the statute was enacted. Second, no common law duty exists because the third-party victim was not foreseeable. The court distinguished this case from DiMarco (involving a communicable disease), where the risk was to a specific, identifiable class of people, not the public at large. Extending liability here would make physicians insurers of their patients' public conduct.

Yes, a physician should be held liable to a third party for failing to comply with the statutory reporting duty. The clear purpose of the reporting requirement is not merely administrative but to protect motorists and pedestrians from unsafe drivers. By failing to report, the doctor broke a critical link in highway safety. The case is analogous to DiMarco, as the statutory duty in both instances was enacted to protect third parties from harm. A member of the public, like the bicyclist, is a foreseeable victim of a visually impaired driver, and the risk of death or serious injury is an imminent public health risk, just as a communicable disease is.

No, a physician does not owe a duty of care to a third party injured by the physician's patient because the Motor Vehicle Code's reporting requirements do not expressly or implicitly provide a private remedy for failure to report. The reporting requirements are intended to assist PennDOT in making licensing decisions, not to create a duty to third parties. The statute's purpose is to obtain information about licensed drivers, not to establish a relationship between physicians and the public at large. 

The statutory scheme enlists physicians to report certain conditions as an administrative benefit to the Commonwealth, not to protect members of the general public from patients' actions. The court is hesitant to infer a legislative intent to create a private cause of action where it would constitute a drastic change in the law. 

Ms. Witthoeft was not a foreseeable victim that the court will recognize. Courts are generally reluctant to impose a duty on professionals to protect the public from the actions of third parties, absent special circumstances. Extending liability in this case would make physicians absolutely liable for the various acts of their patients, which the court will not countenance.

Yes, an ophthalmologist should be held liable to a third party injured by a patient's operation of a motor vehicle when the ophthalmologist fails to report the patient's poor visual acuity to PennDOT as required by law. The Motor Vehicle Code's reporting requirements were clearly enacted to protect the public from unsafe drivers. 

A doctor's duty to report certain medical conditions to PennDOT is not merely an administrative benefit, but serves to alert PennDOT to drivers diagnosed with conditions that put them at risk of injuring themselves or others on the road. It is logical that a doctor should be liable to a third party for injuries caused by a patient's poor visual acuity when the doctor fails to report that condition. 

Like in DiMarco v. Lynch Homes-Chester County, Inc., where a physician owed a duty to a third party after failing to properly advise a patient exposed to Hepatitis B, Dr. Kiskaddon had a clear statutory duty to report Ms. Myers' poor visual acuity but failed to do so. In both cases, the statutory duties were enacted to protect third parties.

Estate of Witthoeft v. Kiskaddon

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot