Stumper v. Kimel

3 Citing cases

  1. Variety Children's Hosp. v. Perkins

    382 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that because the general verdict form does not reveal whether the jury found against the hospital because of the actions of the residents, the nurses, or both, this Court was "compelled conclusively to presume that the verdict was grounded, at least in part, on the nurses’ negligence, as to which it is conceded there was no error committed below"

    Hohenthal v. Smith, 72 App.D.C. 343, 114 F.2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1940); Adams v. Leidholt, 579 P.2d 618 (Colo. 1978); Bernardi v. Community Hospital Association, 166 Colo. 280, 443 P.2d 708 (1968); Davis v. Trobough, 139 Mont. 322, 363 P.2d 727 (1961); Stumper v. Kimel, 108 N.J. Super. 209, 260 A.2d 526 (1970), cert. denied, 55 N.J. 589, 264 A.2d 526 (1970), see also Barrette v. Hight, 353 Mass. 268, 230 N.E.2d 808 (1967). We agree with and follow these decisions.

  2. Kulper v. Schwartz

    DOCKET NO. A-3512-12T2 (App. Div. Sep. 8, 2015)

    Moreover, plaintiffs' expert acknowledged that Schwartz acted within the accepted standards of medical care in instructing Kuxhaus to call Walsh with the information about the imaging study and also, in trusting Kuxhaus to do so. See Stumper v. Kimel, 108 N.J. Super. 209, 213 (App. Div.), certif. den., 55 N.J. 589 (1970) (holding "a surgeon rendering post-operative care to a patient is not liable for the negligence of a hospital-employed resident physician, when the orders given . . . [are] the accepted medical [and hospital] standard of practice."). Defendants' argument that Schwartz should step into the shoes of AHS as special employer fails as a matter of law and lacks sufficient support in the evidence, even to create an issue that required resolution by the jury.

  3. Whitfield v. Blackwood

    206 N.J. Super. 487 (App. Div. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    Finally, plaintiff also tried the case as if the borrowed servant-employee rule or vicarious liability applied. See Stumper v. Kimel, 108 N.J. Super. 209 (App.Div. 1970), certif. den. 55 N.J. 589 (1970).