Plaintiff alleged that the negligence of a medical student, who assisted in Plaintiff’s surgery by manipulating a sponge stick under the supervision of the defendant physicians, resulted in the defendant physicians improperly cutting her rectal wall. According to Plaintiff, that injury later developed into a “rectovaginal fistula” that caused fecal matter to enter her vagina and required further medical intervention. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserted claims against Defendants for professional negligence, negligent supervision of the medical student, and vicarious liability for any negligence committed by the medical student.
The Georgia Supreme Court held in its opinion filed on May 13, 2025: “whether a plaintiff can hold a master
vicariously liable for a servant’s acts or omissions has traditionally rested on the doctrine of respondeat superior. And consistent with that traditional understanding of vicarious liability, we have identified the doctrine of respondeat superior, rather than the borrowed servant doctrine, as the basis for holding a special master vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of borrowed servants, who, as the phrase “borrowed servant” implies, are servants of the special master … a plaintiff who seeks to hold a special master vicariously liable for a borrowed servant’s conduct cannot
rely on the borrowed servant doctrine but instead must establish the elements of a respondeat superior claim — that, when the injury occurred, the borrowed servant was acting as the special master’s “servant” in furtherance of the special master’s goals and within the scope of the special master’s business. Because Georgia law does not recognize vicarious liability claims premised on the borrowed servant doctrine, Plaintiff cannot hold Defendants vicariously liable under that doctrine … Defendants were not entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of vicarious liability because, while there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding their vicarious liability under OCGA § 51-1-38 or the borrowed servant doctrine, the evidence presented on summary judgment created a jury question as to whether the defendant physicians were vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for any negligence committed by the medical student during Plaintiff’s surgery.”
“While the contract may have been relevant in determining whether the defendant physicians had a right to control the medical student, Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim was not primarily based on the defendant physicians’ right of control but instead on their assumption of control over the medical student. And because the defendant physicians could have assumed control over the medical student even if they did not have a contractual right to do so, the Court of Appeals’ lead opinion erred in treating the contract terms as dispositive of whether the defendant physicians could be held vicariously liable.”
“[T]he undisputed evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, created a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendant physicians assumed control over the medical student’s physical conduct during Plaintiff’s surgery. Specifically, the undisputed evidence showed that the defendant physicians instructed the medical student to insert the sponge stick into Plaintiff’s vagina, visually confirmed that the medical student’s initial insertion was proper, and directed the medical student to manipulate the sponge stick as necessary during the surgery. Because a plaintiff need only show a sufficient group of “pertinent factors” to establish the existence of a master-servant relationship, Farmer, 245 Ga. at 738, and because this undisputed evidence could support a finding that the defendant physicians assumed control over the manner and method of the medical student’s work, whether the medical student was acting as the defendant physician’s servant during Plaintiff’s procedure is a jury question that cannot be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment.”
Source Statham v. Quang, S24G0842.
If you or a loved one may have been injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Georgia or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Georgia medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.