Van Horn v. Chambers
970 S.W.2d 542, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1168, 1998 Tex. LEXIS 119 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician's duty of care for medical diagnosis and treatment arises solely from the physician-patient relationship and does not extend to non-patient third parties who are harmed by the patient's actions.
Facts:
- Johnny Long, Jr. was admitted to Hermann Hospital for seizures and alcohol withdrawal, behaving combatively upon arrival.
- Emergency room staff sedated and restrained Long before he was transferred to the neurological critical care unit (NCCU).
- Dr. Gage Van Horn, the attending neurologist, determined Long no longer required critical care and transferred him to a private room on an unsecured floor.
- The day after the transfer, Long attempted to leave the hospital.
- Hospital employees Edward Johnson and Ronald Chambers, along with a medical student, tried to physically stop Long from leaving.
- During the ensuing struggle, Long, Johnson, and Chambers crashed through a louvered grill covering an air shaft and fell twenty-four feet.
- As a result of the fall, Ronald Chambers died and Edward Johnson was injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Johnson and the parents of Ronald Chambers sued Dr. Van Horn in a Texas trial court for negligence and gross negligence.
- Dr. Van Horn filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing he owed no legal duty to the plaintiffs.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Van Horn.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that a duty might exist, and remanded the case for trial.
- Dr. Van Horn, as petitioner, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
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 duty of reasonable care to non-patient third parties for alleged negligence in diagnosing, treating, and controlling a patient?
Opinions:
Majority - Gonzalez, Justice
No. A physician's duty of care arises from the doctor-patient relationship and flows only to the patient, not to third parties. The plaintiffs' claims are fundamentally about Dr. Van Horn's alleged misdiagnosis and negligent treatment of Long's medical condition. Such claims sound in medical negligence, and a duty to avoid such negligence is owed only to the patient. The court distinguished this case from Otis Engineering, which imposed a duty on an employer regarding its employee, by holding that Otis Engineering is limited to the employer-employee context where a master has an inherent right to control a servant, a right that does not exist in a physician-patient relationship. The court also rejected arguments based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, finding that the physician-patient relationship is not a 'special relationship' that imposes a duty to control a patient for the protection of third parties.
Analysis:
This decision strictly limits a physician's tort liability to the patient, reinforcing the traditional bounds of medical malpractice. By refusing to extend a physician's duty to the general public, the court prevents the creation of a potentially limitless class of plaintiffs and avoids imposing conflicting duties on physicians (e.g., the duty to protect patient confidentiality and autonomy versus a duty to protect third parties). This holding solidifies the principle that unless a 'special relationship' with an inherent right of control exists, such as employer-employee, one does not have an affirmative duty to control the conduct of another person. The case makes it significantly more difficult for third parties injured by a patient to sue that patient's physician for negligence.
