24/12 - Maryland Courts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\thomast\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus ...$

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
TransCare moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under both the Good Samaritan Act and the Fire and Rescue Act. The Circuit Court for Talbot County 9 was initially persuaded that there were disputes of material fact as to TransCare’s corporate relationship with the other medical providers involved and as to whether it had received a “fee or compensation” that would preclude application of the Good Samaritan Act. The Circuit Court also tentatively concluded that the Fire and Rescue Act did not apply to a commercial ambulance company such as TransCare. Accordingly, the Circuit Court initially denied TransCare’s motion for summary judgment based on those immunity provisions. TransCare thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, submitting two affidavits that established the company’s independent corporate status and described its billing practices. Following a hearing on that motion, the Circuit Court concluded that there were no remaining disputes of material fact and that TransCare was immune under both the Good Samaritan Act and the Fire and Rescue Act. It therefore granted summary judgment in favor of TransCare. Appeal The Murrays appealed and the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding that neither statute applied to a private, for-profit ambulance company. 203 Md. App. 172, 37 A.3d 987 (20<strong>12</strong>). TransCare petitioned this Court for certiorari. We granted the petition to determine 9 The complaint was initially filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City but, upon motion by TransCare, was transferred to the Circuit Court for Talbot County on the ground that the latter court was the more appropriate venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. 5
Page 1 and 2: TransCare Maryland, Inc. et al. v.
Page 3 and 4: In the parable of the Good Samarita
Page 5: paramedic employed by Petitioner Tr
Page 9 and 10: • keep in mind the statutory cont
Page 11 and 12: (a) A person described in subsectio
Page 13 and 14: CJ §5-603(b)(3) - Text As TransCar
Page 15 and 16: time, the adjective “volunteer”
Page 17 and 18: 1976 bill, who told the Legislature
Page 19 and 20: encompassed the employees of a comp
Page 21 and 22: TransCare’s argument is contrary
Page 23 and 24: organization’s members or employe
Page 25 and 26: Under the common law, state and loc
Page 27 and 28: ordinary negligence. 32 In particul
Page 29 and 30: §5-639 (establishing immunity for
Page 31 and 32: out of such agreements are to be
Page 33 and 34: “any act or omission in the cours
Page 35: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL AP

24/12 - Maryland Courts

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?