Legal Opinion

Dill v. Scuka

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided June 23, 1959No. Civ. A. 20539PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EGAN, District Judge.

Essentially this is an attempt to fasten vicarious liability on a treating doctor who called in a specialist, with the patient’s consent, to perform an aortogram, in which effort the expert was unsuccessful, the attempted aortogram having been performed by the expert in the absence of the treating doctor who did not assist in any way at the time.

Secondarily, plaintiff seeks to impose liability on the treating doctor on the ground that he abandoned the plaintiff after the unsuccessful attempts to perform the aortogram and failed to prescribe other forms of therapy which…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Foley v. the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  4. Vorbnoff v. Mesta Machine Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  5. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of TrusteesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dan F. Thompson v. C. Walton Lillehei, Geraldine B. Thompson v. C. Walton LilleheiCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1959
  2. Christopher v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Kenneth v. Dill v. Clayton L. Scuka, M.DCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1960
  4. Harold E. Hayward v. Dr. Dean H. EcholsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API