Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

Summary and Facts

X underwent a tonsillectomy, palatal stiffening, and endoscopic sinus surgery at a private hospital (Z) on 10/3/2010. Twelve days after the surgery, X experienced heavy bleeding at the surgical site and was rushed to an emergency department. Consultant Y1 recommended immediate surgery to stop the bleeding, assisted by Consultant Y2, the anesthetist. Unfortunately, X’s condition deteriorated in the airlock area outside the operating theater. Although surgery was performed, X suffered severe hypoxic brain damage, resulting in permanent disability. X’s spouse filed a suit against Y1, Y2, and Z, alleging negligence, breaches of contract, and statutory duties.

Key Issues

  1. Hospital Liability for Independent Contractors: Did Y1’s negligence as an independent contractor render Z liable?
  2. Non-Delegable Duty of Care: Did Z owe X a non-delegable duty of care, requiring it to prevent harm from acts or omissions of its staff, agents, or independent contractors?
  3. Indemnity Obligation: Should Y2 indemnify Z for the damages?

Court’s Findings

  • Non-Delegable Duty of Care: The court applied the five features established in Woodland v Essex County Council, concluding that Z owed X a non-delegable duty of care:
    1. Vulnerability: X was vulnerable and entirely reliant on Z for medical care and treatment.
    2. Accountability: Z’s communication with patients suggested the hospital assumed responsibility for treatment, irrespective of whether tasks were performed by employees, contractors, or other agents.
    3. & 4. Control and Delegation: X had no control over how Z managed emergency care, whether performed directly by Z’s staff or delegated to third parties like Y1 and Y2.
    4. Negligence of Delegates: The court found Y2 negligent in providing emergency care to X, breaching the duties delegated by Z.
  • Hospital’s Liability: The court rejected Z’s defense based on the independent contractor argument. Due to its non-delegable duty of care, Z held personal liability for X’s injuries beyond the individual responsibilities of Y1 and Y2.

Conclusion

This case reinforces the high standard of duty of care hospitals owe to their patients. Judgment was entered against Z (D3), holding it fully liable for the injuries suffered by X due to its non-delegable duty of care.

Cases Referred

  1. Dr Hari Krishnan & Anor v Megat Noor Ishak bin Megat Ibrahim & Anor and another appeal [2018] 3 MLJ 281
  2. Woodland v Essex County Council [2014] 1 All ER 482; [2013] UKSC 66
  3. Dr Kok Choong Seng & Anor v Soo Cheng Lin and another appeal [2018] 1 MLJ 685; [2017] 10 CLJ 529; [2017] 6 MLRA 367
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami