24/12 - Maryland Courts

The Murrays’ Negligence Action
Complaint
Bryson, by his mother, Karen Murray, subsequently filed a complaint against
TransCare alleging medical malpractice on the basis that its employee, Mr. Barbour, had
failed to provide the requisite standard of care and that TransCare was vicariously
responsible under the principle of respondeat superior. 7 According to the complaint, Bryson
suffered hypoxic brain injury due to alleged acts and omissions of Mr. Barbour during the
helicopter transport and, as a result, is blind, deaf, and mentally disabled. The complaint did
not name Mr. Barbour individually as a defendant. 8
Summary Judgment Motion
7 This Court has recently described the doctrine of respondeat superior:
Litigants may invoke the doctrine of respondeat superior
as a means of holding an employer, corporate or otherwise,
vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of an employee, where
it has been shown that the employee was acting within the scope
of the employment relationship at that time. On a successful
claim under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer
will be held jointly and severally liable for the tortious acts
committed by its employee. For an employee’s tortious acts to
be considered within the scope of employment, the acts must
have been in furtherance of the employer’s business and
authorized by the employer.
S. Mgmt. Corp. v. Taha, 378 Md. 461, 480-81, 836 A.2d 627 (2003).
8 The Murrays had earlier also asserted claims against PHI Air Medical and UMMS,
which had been resolved by the time the complaint was filed.
4