When
you get your wisdom teeth pulled, undergo surgery, or get your eyes dilated by
an ophthalmologist, you should be driven home by someone you trust. After
undergoing such procedures, your driving will be impaired and getting behind
the wheel will put yourself and others in danger. Your doctor must warn you of
the side effects of medication, especially if it will have an effect on your
driving. If they fail to do so and you are involved in an accident, they may be
liable to provide compensation. The people you injure with your car may also
want to hold the doctor accountable for their lack of action. However, whether
they are able to do so is highly disputed in the court system.
To help explain the concept, here’s an
example: Mike decides to take a trip to the gas station; maybe he needs gas, or
maybe he’s feeling lucky and decides to buy a lotto ticket. Because he lives in
Malone, there are more than enough gas stations to choose from, but he decides
to go to Stewart’s and makes his purchase. While he’s walking out of the store,
a car hurtles across the parking lot and strikes him. The car is driven by an
elderly man who is recovering from an eye dilation. The elderly man’s doctor
did not tell him how long the dilation was meant to last. Mike survives the
accident but suffers serious injuries from it. Should the eye doctor be liable
for Mike’s injury?
This example is actually very similar to
an actual event in the case, Purdy v. The
Public Administration of Westchester County. A good summary of the case and
its significance is outlined by Thomas A. Moore Matthew Gaier in a recent
article they wrote for the New York Law Journal. In that case, a man was struck
by a vehicle driven by a 75-year old woman who blacked out behind the wheel.
The woman lived at a nursing home and experienced frequent blackouts. The
injured man, Purdy, took legal action against the nursing home for allowing the
woman to drive.
Now, the only difference between the example
involving ‘Mike’, above and the actual court case was that the fictitious Mike
in the example was that he was hit by someone who was given eye drops by his
doctor. Eye drops are a form of medication. By contrast, the woman in Purdy v. The Public Administration of
Westchester County was not given any medication by the nursing home where
she lived. That single difference may seem small, but it has a significant
impact in the eyes of the court.
In the court case discussed above, the
elderly woman was under the care of medical professionals because she lived in
a nursing home. This means that the nursing home owed a duty to elderly woman
through an established relationship. Purdy was a third party to that relationship.
The question proposed by the Court was wheher the medical professionals at the
nursing home owed a duty to Purdy even though he had no direct relationship
with them. The Court also questioned whether the nursing home had control over
the woman’s ability to drive.
The Court found that the nursing home did
not owe a …..duty of care to the public and did not have significant authority
over the woman’s ability to operate a vehicle. It was also found that the
medical care professionals did not owe a duty to warn the woman of the dangers
involved in driving for the benefit of the public. These decisions were made
largely because the medical care professionals did not administer any
medication to the woman. Because she was not given medication, there were no
side effects of which she could be warned. In the process of resolving this
court case, it was made clear that doctors and other medical personnel may be
held accountable by injured third parties if the use of medication is involved.
Purdy’s case occurred in 1988 and since
that time, other cases have surfaced that have clarified the Court’s position
on this issue a little more. In Davis v.
South Nassau Community Hospital, the Court made the following statement.
“Where a medical provider has administered to a patient medication that impairs
or could impair the patient’s ability to safely operate an automobile, the
medical provider has a duty to third parties to warn patient of that danger.”
This means that if a doctor gives their patient medication that could have
side-effects that would cause the patient to drive in a dangerous fashion, the
doctor is to clearly indicate those side effects to the patient and explain
that it can affect their driving.
The side effects of a medication that can
effect one’s driving include; sedation, weakness, dizziness, unsteadiness, and
disorientation. Patients who feel any of these symptoms should not get behind
the wheel as it will put them at risk as well as others.
In addition, the Court has also considered
third party relationships in a different light. In Davis v. South Nassau Community Hospital, the Court concluded that
it must be considered in each case as to whether the medical provider is in the
best position to prevent harm given their relationship to the patient and third
party. If the medical provider is in the best position to prevent harm by
warning a medicated patient about the dangers of driving, they may be held
liable if a third party becomes injured. This is because the medical
professional was the one who made the decision to administer the medication to
the patient.
Vehicles are powerful machines that can
cause horrible damage to people and property when they are not operated
correctly. If you or a loved one has been involved in a car accident with an
individual taking medication, you may be able to receive compensation for your
injuries. If you have any questions about third party relationships in
automobile accidents, contact Poissant, Nichols, Grue, and Vanier at:
367
West Main Street
45 Market Street
Malone,
New York 12953
Potsdam, New York 13676
Phone:
(518) 483-1440
Toll
Free: 1-800-924-3529
-Paul Nichols
No comments:
Post a Comment