Manning v. Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital, Inc.
1992 Ida. LEXIS 88, 830 P.2d 1185, 122 Idaho 47 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A principal is liable for punitive damages based on the acts of its agent only if the principal participated in, authorized, or ratified the agent's conduct. A principal's failure to reprimand or discharge an agent, or its defense of the agent's actions in litigation, is insufficient, by itself, to establish a clear showing of ratification.
Facts:
- Daryl Manning, a 67-year-old man in the final stage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), was admitted to Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital.
- Manning required 24-hour supplemental oxygen and was designated a "no code" patient at his family's request, with his doctor estimating he had 24 hours to live.
- Nurses Anderson and Austin attempted to move Manning to a private room, temporarily disconnecting his supplemental oxygen for the transfer.
- Manning's family members, who were present, strenuously urged the nurses to use a portable oxygen unit, but the nurses declined, citing the short distance of the move.
- After being moved no more than fifteen feet without oxygen, Manning suffered extreme respiratory distress and died shortly thereafter.
- Testimony at trial indicated that it had been a regular practice for nurses at the hospital to move patients on oxygen over short distances without portable units for at least six years.
- Shortly after Manning's death, the hospital implemented a new policy requiring all patients on prescribed oxygen to be moved with portable supplemental oxygen.
Procedural Posture:
- Daryl Manning's family (plaintiffs) sued Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital, Inc., and nurses Anderson and Austin in an Idaho state trial court for wrongful death, emotional distress, and punitive damages.
- A jury returned a verdict awarding compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages of $300 against nurse Anderson and $180,000 against the hospital.
- The jury found nurse Austin not liable on all claims.
- The Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital and nurse Anderson (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Idaho law, does a principal's failure to reprimand or discharge an agent for misconduct, coupled with a defense of the agent's actions at trial, constitute a clear showing of ratification sufficient to hold the principal liable for punitive damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A principal's failure to reprimand an agent or its defense of the agent's actions does not, without more, constitute a clear showing of ratification sufficient to hold the principal liable for punitive damages. To be liable for punitive damages, a principal must have participated in, authorized, or ratified the agent's conduct. Ratification requires a manifestation of intent to approve the act with full knowledge of all material facts. The hospital's failure to reprimand the nurses or its defense of them at trial could be motivated by various reasons and does not clearly show an intent to approve their conduct. Furthermore, the hospital’s subsequent remedial measure—instituting a new policy requiring supplemental oxygen during patient moves—acts as a repudiation of the nurses' conduct, which is inconsistent with ratification. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence of ratification to submit the issue of punitive damages against the hospital to the jury.
Concurring - Bakes, C.J.
This opinion concurs with the majority's reversal of punitive damages against the hospital. However, it disagrees with the majority's approval of the 'substantial factor' causation jury instruction. The author believes a standard 'but for' proximate cause instruction was more appropriate for the facts of this case, but concludes the error was likely harmless.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Bistline, J.
Yes. The evidence supported holding the hospital liable for punitive damages. This opinion concurs with affirming the verdict against the nurse but dissents from reversing the punitive damages against the hospital. The dissent argues the majority improperly interfered with a jury verdict that was supported by evidence of the hospital's 'wholly indifferent' and 'lackadaisical attitude' toward patient care. The hospital's claim of ignorance regarding the long-standing nursing practice should not absolve it of liability; the jury correctly found the hospital's corporate negligence warranted exemplary damages.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine of ratification for corporate punitive liability in Idaho. It establishes a high evidentiary bar, holding that post-incident conduct like failing to discipline an employee or defending them in court is not enough on its own to prove ratification. By highlighting that subsequent remedial measures can serve as evidence against ratification, the court provides a clear signal that corrective actions are viewed favorably and do not constitute an admission or approval of the prior tortious conduct. This ruling protects employers from being forced into a 'double-edged' position of either firing an employee immediately or facing punitive damages for impliedly ratifying their conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Manning v. Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital, Inc.