Wharton Transport Corp. v. Bridges
24 A.L.R. 4th 1295, 606 S.W.2d 521, 1980 Tenn. LEXIS 504 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician who negligently performs a pre-employment physical examination and certifies a driver as fit owes a duty to the motoring public. If the driver's undisclosed physical disabilities proximately cause an accident, the employer held vicariously liable may seek implied indemnity from the physician.
Facts:
- On May 22, 1972, Wharton Transportation Corporation sent Martin Lawson, a prospective truck driver, to a clinic operated by Dr. James T. Bridges for a pre-employment physical examination required by federal regulations.
- Dr. Bridges' clinic issued a medical certificate, signed with his approval, stating that Lawson's physical characteristics were normal and that he was qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle.
- Relying on this certification, Wharton hired Lawson as a truck driver.
- On May 27, 1972, while on his first solo trip, Lawson's truck collided with a station wagon parked on the highway's shoulder, resulting in one death and severe injuries to the Rains family.
- After the accident, Wharton learned that at the time of the examination, Lawson was 100% permanently physically disabled.
- Lawson's disabilities included severe vision impairment with 95% vision loss in his left eye and impaired depth perception, severe osteoarthritis in his left knee, degenerative disc disease, and chronic fatigue.
- Dr. Bridges admitted that a reasonably skillful examination would have discovered these disabilities and that Lawson's vision defects alone would have disqualified him from driving under federal regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- Wharton Transportation Corporation sued Dr. James T. Bridges for indemnity in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, the court of first instance.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge granted a directed verdict in favor of Dr. Bridges.
- Wharton Transportation Corporation appealed this decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Wharton Transportation Corporation, as appellant, was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court, to review the decision. Dr. Bridges is 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 who negligently performs a pre-employment physical examination and certifies a driver as fit have an implied duty of indemnity to the employer for damages the employer pays to third parties injured in an accident proximately caused by the driver's undisclosed physical disabilities?
Opinions:
Majority - Fones, J.
Yes, a physician who negligently performs a pre-employment physical examination can be liable to the employer under a theory of implied indemnity. The lower courts erred in directing a verdict for Dr. Bridges, as there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find his negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. Lawson's severe, undiagnosed physical disabilities—particularly his vision impairment and fatigue—could have caused him to fail to see the parked vehicle. The question of causation, given conflicting accounts of the accident, should have been submitted to the jury. Furthermore, the harm to the Rains family was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of negligently certifying an unfit driver. The examination form itself highlights the public safety purpose, distinguishing this from cases of unforeseeable, indeterminate liability like Ultramares. A duty of care extends from the physician to members of the motoring public. If Wharton's liability to the Rains family is purely vicarious (respondeat superior) and not based on any direct negligence of its own, it has a right to implied indemnity from Dr. Bridges, whose breach of his contractual duty to perform a proper examination caused the loss. If, on remand, Wharton is also found to be directly negligent, it may still be entitled to contribution from Dr. Bridges as a joint tortfeasor.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of a physician's liability beyond the traditional doctor-patient relationship. It establishes that a physician performing a pre-employment physical for a safety-sensitive position owes a duty of care to third parties who could be foreseeably harmed by a medically unfit employee. The case solidifies an employer's right to seek indemnity from a negligent third-party contractor when the employer's own liability is purely vicarious. This precedent creates a direct financial incentive for physicians in industrial medicine to conduct examinations with care, as it provides a clear legal avenue for employers to shift the ultimate financial responsibility for resulting accidents back to the examining physician.
