Mazer v. Lipschutz

I concur in the fine opinion of the Majority that the question of Dr. Lip-schutz’s vicarious liability should have been submitted to the jury. I dissent from the view that Dr. Chodoff cannot be vicariously accountable.

In the factual situation presented, before attempting to identify servants and agents, it is necessary to isolate principals, those who are susceptible to vicariout accountability. The hospital, though not in this suit, could be held a principal, this apart from the issue whether the hospital could be looked to for damages.1 See Brown v. Moore, 247 F.2d 711, 69 A.L.R.2d 288 (3…