This paper analyzes the case of Ramberg v. Morgan, in which a man struck by a car was examined by a police physician who misdiagnosed him as intoxicated. The patient later died from an undetected brain hemorrhage caused by a skull fracture. Using the doctrine of respondeat superior, the paper examines each element of negligence — duty to care, breach of duty, injury, and causation — and reviews the court's ultimate reversal of an earlier damages award. The central legal question was whether the physician's misdiagnosis proximately caused the patient's death, and the court found no sufficient proof that proper treatment would have changed the outcome.
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held liable for the actions or inactions of its employee. In this case, that doctrine means the police agency — as Dr. Morgan's employing authority — would be the potentially liable party for his conduct.
In this matter, Mr. Ramberg was struck by a car and his body was thrown several dozen feet. The driver of the vehicle that struck Ramberg called the police. Upon arrival, officers observed only a small amount of blood on the decedent but found no visible signs of fractures or other serious injuries. Dr. Morgan, the examining physician, concluded that Ramberg was simply intoxicated. After the examination, Ramberg was placed in a cell and largely ignored, as his behavior closely resembled that of a drunk individual. However, as it later became apparent, Ramberg had a hemorrhage and dangerous pressure building in his brain, which ultimately killed him.
The central question before the court was whether Dr. Morgan was negligent in his incorrect diagnosis of the patient. More specifically, the question became whether Ramberg would have survived had Morgan reached the correct diagnosis. Upon examination, the court found that injuries of this type — intracranial bleeding and skull fractures — are quite often, if not usually, fatal, and that Ramberg's chances of survival would have been little to none even if he had been rushed to a hospital immediately. The question thus remained whether Ramberg would have lived had Morgan arrived at the proper diagnosis. A prior court had found that Morgan erred and awarded approximately $5,000 (in 1920s currency) to the plaintiff.
Dr. Morgan clearly had a duty of care, and he did, in fact, act upon it. He arrived when called — approximately one hour after the accident — conducted a thorough examination, and reached a conclusion he believed to be correct based on the observable evidence available to him at the time.
The police department that held Ramberg in custody — even turning away someone who attempted to take him home — may have exhibited some degree of neglect as well. However, the probable outcome for Ramberg would likely have been the same regardless, given that Morgan believed him to be intoxicated and the police, who were not medically qualified, treated him accordingly. The officers were not in a position to arrive at a different clinical diagnosis.
As noted in the case summary, Ramberg sustained a parietal and occipital bone fracture in the neck and head area. In terms of injury to the party bringing suit on Ramberg's behalf, they sought remuneration based on the perceived medical malpractice of Dr. Morgan.
"Skull fracture injury and malpractice claim basis"
"Court reverses prior ruling, no proof of causation"
"Correlation versus causation in legal practice"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.