NURSE’S STATUS

Evening Star, Issue 21994, 2 April 1935, Page 9

NURSE’S STATUS

SERVANT TD BOARD IN PROFESSIONAL DUTIES ? IMPORTANT APPEAL CASE [Pe* U kited Press Assochtiok.] WELLINGTON, April 2. In the case of Logan v. the Waitakf Hospital Board, which is before tha Court of Appeal to-day, Ernest Logan,, a labourer, is appealing from the de* cision of Mr Justice Kennedy. The facts of the case are that Loganl sued the board for £2,000 for injuries alleged to have been due to negligent! treatment by its nurses. The occurred when Logan was in a state off collapse and unconsciousness. The house! surgeon of the hospital had ordered thei us© of a radiant heat needle, and hacß directed that a thermometer should b«( placed in the bed and the heater care-# fully watched. Some hours later a burnt was discovered on his knee, which ultiJ mately developed into septic infection* requiring amputation of the leg. Thai board, in its defence, denied negligence* and pleaded that, even if there was neg* ligence, it was not liable. The judget found that the injuries were due to the! negligence of the nurse and assessed thef damage at £1,350. He then proceeded! to consider the important point as to!* whether the board was liable for tha acts of nurses carrying out profession af duties as opposed to ministerial duties* In the course of his judgment.Mr Justice Kennedy stated: “ Iff the board is to be held liable! it must be on the ground that! the nurses are not only the genera? servants of the board, but are in tha actual care and treatment of the ent pursuant to the directions of a doc* tor, the servants of the board.’VAftetl pointing out that a public hospital is not liable for the negligent acts off doctors in matters of professional skill) “ in which the governors of the hospital neither do nor could properly interfere* either by rule or by supervision,” the judge continued that “ in the profes* sional treatment of a patient, a nurse, is, from the nature of things, bound tor supply her professional skill and train* ing, always subject, not to any orders from the board on such treatment, but) to the orders and directions of tha medical attendant, whether he be oni the honorary staff or a salaried officer! in the employment of the board. I think, therefore, that from the nature of things, in the absence of a contract* otherwise providing, that the proper in* ference is that, in the application- off her professional skill, as distinct from! the discharge of a mere ministerial duty, a nurse engaged in carrying out? treatment under the directions of a doctor, where her professional skill is' in* volved, is not a servant of the board.”! It was therefore held that the board, was not responsible for the nurse’s neg«* ligence. Opening the case for the appellant,Mr O’Regan submitted that the sola: reason for the immunity enjoyed by hospital authorities in respect of thanegligence of a doctor was because there was no contract of service*. There was no distinction between pro-y fessional duties and ministerial orf routine duties, which _ distinction) formed the basis of the decision in thef court below.. If the court did not ac-i cept' this proposition, he would submit* that the negligence displayed by. that nurse was not negligible in her profesJ sional capacity. Counsel stated that the, professional duties of a nurse included, those , which, though they might be per* formed by her if she were in attendance would in her absence be performed by a doctor. The ministerial duties off a nurse were those which, though they might be performed by a nurse iff present, in her absence would he as* signed by a doctor to non-professional persons. Accordingly, counsel con* tended that as the nurse was responsible to the board in regard to ministerial duties, the board was liable ia this case.