Third Party Liability Denied in CT Medical Malpractice/Negligence Claim

A Victory For Physician's Advocate Groups or Is There Another Way To Go About Receiving Compensation?

The Connecticut Supreme Court recently decided the case of Jarmine v. Troncale (No. 18258) the principal issue in that appeal being whether a physician who failed to advise an unaware patient of the potential driving risks related to her underlying medical condition breaches a duty to a party injured by the patient’s unsafe driving resulting from the doctor’s failure to warn. 

In Jarmine, the defendant doctor treated his patient for various liver and kidney problems including hepatic encephalopathy but failed to warn his patient about the latent driving impairment associated with her condition. After the patient left the defendant doctor’s office, she blacked out while operating her motor vehicle and hit the plaintiff.

The trial court granted the defendant doctor’s motion to strike ruling that a third party is barred from bringing an action against a doctor for medical malpractice and that the doctor owed no duty to the plaintiff to warn of his patient’s driving risks associated with her medical condition. The trial court in issuing its ruling stated that the plaintiff failed to allege a physician-patient relationship as required under Connecticut medical malpractice law and that CT case law indicates that physicians have no common law duty to protect third parties from injuries caused by patients.

The CT Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s complaint as sounding in medical negligence is legally insufficient because it contained no allegation that the plaintiff and the defendant had a patient-physician relationship as required under our medical malpractice statute. The Court, after reviewing the relevant case law, also held that the defendant doctor owed no duty to the plaintiff in this case because CT precedent does not support it, the plaintiff was an unidentifiable victim, public policy considerations counsel against it and there is no consensus in other jurisdictions, which have only rarely considered this issue.

Physician’s Advocate Groups have praised this decision stating that it protects doctors from being sued by third parties who are injured by patients. Query does it really?  This decision, in certain scenarios, might not protect doctors who commit malpractice on a patient whose malpractice results in injury to a third party. Let us assume that in the fact pattern of Jarmine the patient blacks out and causes an accident that kills someone. What then?

The estate of the deceased person could sue the patient for wrongful death. The patient could then potentially join the doctor as a defendant on at least one legal theory. In a claim of Active-Passive Indemnification the patient would argue if I am responsible for the death of the third party then my doctor should indemnify me because my doctor’s active negligence was the direct cause of the plaintiff’s damages rather than the defendant patient’s passive negligence.

So on one hand a third party could not sue the doctor for medical malpractice or negligence but could instead sue the patient and still potentially collect against the offending doctor.


Richard P. Hastings is a Connecticut personal injury lawyerat Hastings, Cohan & Walsh, LLP, with offices throughout the state. He has been named a New England Super Lawyer and is the author of the books: "The Crash Course on Child Injury Claims"; "The Crash Course on Personal Injury Claims in Connecticut" and "The Crash Course on Motorcycle Accidents." He has also co-authored the best selling book "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing- What Your Insurance Company Doesn't Want You to Know and Won't Tell You Until It's Too Late!" He can be reached at 1(888)CTLAW-00 or by visiting www.hcwlaw.com.

Carol Hudak October 20, 2012 at 05:32 PM
So the moral of the story is, seek medical care at your own risk. I hope this patient sues this doctor for fraud; for failure to provide adequate care. Didn't Hippocrates say, 'do no evil?' To not discuss the ramifications of an illness with a patient, is substandard medical 'care.' If a patient can cause themselves and others harm by driving, and the doctor fails to tell them, the doctor is to blame. He/she is withholding vital information. This doctor should be sanctioned in some way, instead of protected.
MAC October 20, 2012 at 11:49 PM
No, Carol. He said "Do no harm." And unless you are an expert on the LAW, then your advice is just your typical angry post. If dissatisfied people sue, and win $$ as a result--or even cause huge and frequent legal fees--against doctors as often as you and other angry types think they should, then there will become a severe doctor shortage, as they cannot afford the malpractice insurance premiums already!
Carol Hudak October 21, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Well, MAC, I know you're not an expert on politics, dear poster, so I guess all of your Patch posts are 'just your typical angry post(s) . . . ' You not being an expert on politics (and that's clear from all that you post) doesn't stop you from 'generously' giving Patch readers your consistently angry opinions. ALSO: I must politely suggest a course in reading comprehension for you. You have made huge leaps from my statement. (Hmmm . . . maybe you do have a talent for politics . . .) And, if Hippocrates said, 'Do no harm' - I thank you for the correction, BTW - no harm and no evil are making a similar statement: in other words, don't make things worse for a patient. A physician who fails to tell a patient with a serious disorder what she can and cannot handle in her life, is a doctor, I feel, who has some culpability in this accident. This is my opinion. Perhaps you can take an anger management course, MAC. Or try yoga! Life's way too short to be as upset as you seem to be all the time.
MAC October 21, 2012 at 02:14 AM
Pot meet kettle, Carol. The difference is the subject of my "anger" is usually Obama's destruction of so much that was good about our nation, while the subject of yours is usually your petty and very personal grievances against Tim Herbst. According to what you have posted about him on Patch, he never does anything good or right.
Joan October 21, 2012 at 02:20 AM
Goodness gracious, it always come back to Obama and his "destruction" of our nation with some people, doesn't it?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something