Common Carriers Liability

Bethel v. NYC TR. AUTH. 92 N.Y.2d 348 (1998)

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/1998/92-n-y-2d-348-0.html

“We granted leave to appeal in this case to confront directly whether a duty of highest care should continue to be applied, as a matter of law, to common carriers and conclude that it should not. We thus realign the standard of care required of common carriers with the traditional, basic negligence standard of reasonable care under the circumstances. Under that standard, there is no stratification of degrees of care as a matter of law (see, Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 34, at 210 [5th ed]). Rather, “there are only different amounts of care, as a matter of fact” (id., at 211).”

Employer Liability/Within Scope of Employment

Doe v. Githrie Clinic LTD 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1644

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1655765.html

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-court-of-appeals/1654495.html

Doe lost in federal court and appealed to the Second Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal.

In in answer to a certification question, the NY Court of Appeals ruled:

“In a separate opinion (710 F3d 492 [2d Cir 2013]), the Second Circuit found that the nurse’s actions were not foreseeable to defendants, nor were her actions taken within the scope of her employment (id. at 495). The court explained that in his complaint Doe himself alleged that the nurse was motivated by purely personal reasons and “those reasons had ‘nothing to do with [Doe’s] treatment and care’” (id., citing Doe complaint at ¶ 25). “As such,” the court held, the nurse’s “actions cannot be imputed to the defendants on the basis of respondeat superior” (id. at 496). The court certified the question to this Court, however, whether Doe may assert a specific and legally distinct cause of action against defendant, for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality, even when respondeat superior liability is absent (id. at 498).”

The question before the NY Court of Appeals was: “Whether, under New York law, the common law right of action for breach of the fiduciary duty of confidentiality for the unauthorized disclosure of medical information may run directly against medical corporations, even when the employee responsible for the breach is not a physician and acts outside the scope of her employment?”

In a 6-1 opinion, the court answered no holding that a medical corporation’s duty of safekeeping a patient’s confidential medical information is limited to those risks that are reasonably foreseeable and to actions within the scope of employment.