In a Georgia medical malpractice wrongful death case, both a hospital and an individual doctor can be named as defendants. They are separate legal persons, and the law recognizes distinct theories under which each may be held responsible. A claim may proceed against a hospital alone, against a doctor alone, or against both together in the same lawsuit. Whether a hospital can be held responsible for a particular doctor’s conduct, however, depends on the legal relationship between them.
A Hospital and a Doctor Are Distinct Defendants
A hospital is typically a corporation or other legal entity. An individual physician is a separate person. Each can owe its own duty of care, and each can be sued. Georgia procedure allows multiple defendants to be named in a single complaint when the claims arise from the same set of facts, which is the common approach in medical malpractice wrongful death cases. Naming both in one action is generally more efficient than pursuing two separate lawsuits, and it allows a single jury to consider all of the conduct that contributed to a death.
Direct Liability of an Individual Doctor
An individual doctor may be directly liable for the doctor’s own negligence. The claim is that the physician failed to meet the applicable standard of care and that the failure caused the patient’s death. To pursue such a claim, Georgia law requires that the complaint be accompanied by an expert affidavit under O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-9.1. The affidavit must come from a competent expert and must specify at least one negligent act or omission and the factual basis for the claim. This affidavit requirement applies to claims against licensed professionals such as physicians.
Direct Liability of a Hospital
A hospital can be directly liable for its own institutional negligence, separate from the conduct of any single physician. Examples of direct hospital negligence include negligent hiring or credentialing of staff, inadequate policies or procedures, understaffing, equipment failures, and the negligence of employees such as nurses and technicians acting within the scope of their employment. When a hospital’s own systems or its non-physician employees fall below the standard of care, the hospital may be answerable for that conduct directly.
Vicarious Liability of a Hospital for a Doctor’s Conduct
A hospital may also be held responsible for a doctor’s negligence through vicarious liability, but only when the legal relationship supports it. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be liable for the negligent acts of an employee committed within the scope of employment. If a physician is an employee of the hospital, the hospital may be vicariously liable for that physician’s negligence.
Many physicians who practice at hospitals, however, are independent contractors rather than employees. As a general matter, an entity is not vicariously liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. Georgia law recognizes an exception known as apparent agency, sometimes called ostensible agency. Under that doctrine, a hospital may still be held responsible for an independent-contractor physician if the hospital held the physician out in a way that would lead a reasonable patient to believe the physician was acting on the hospital’s behalf, and the patient relied on that appearance. Courts examine what a reasonable patient would have understood from the circumstances rather than the internal contract terms alone.
Apportionment of Fault Among Defendants
When more than one defendant is involved, Georgia’s apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33, governs how responsibility is allocated. The statute directs the trier of fact to assess the percentage of fault attributable to each person or entity that contributed to the harm. Damages are then apportioned according to those percentages. Under the statute, apportioned damages are generally the separate liability of each responsible party rather than a joint liability among them. The trier of fact may also consider the fault of persons who contributed to the harm even if they were not named as parties.
The apportionment framework has been the subject of significant litigation and legislative attention in Georgia, including how it interacts with vicarious liability. Because this area of law has evolved and continues to be addressed by the courts and the legislature, the precise allocation of fault in any case depends on current law and the specific facts.
Separate Lawsuits Versus a Single Action
While a hospital and a doctor can be sued separately in the sense that each is an independent defendant with its own potential liability, they are usually joined in one lawsuit rather than pursued in two. Bringing the claims together allows a single jury to evaluate all the contributing conduct and to apportion fault in one proceeding. Pursuing the same death claim against the same defendants in separate, successive lawsuits can raise procedural concerns, so the typical practice is a single action naming all responsible parties.
Conclusion
In a Georgia medical malpractice wrongful death case, a hospital and an individual doctor are distinct defendants, and both can be named, ordinarily in the same lawsuit. A doctor may be directly liable for the doctor’s own negligence, subject to the expert affidavit requirement of O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-9.1. A hospital may be directly liable for its own institutional negligence and the conduct of its employees, and it may be vicariously liable for a physician’s negligence when the physician is an employee or an apparent agent. Fault among multiple defendants is allocated under the apportionment statute, O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33. How responsibility ultimately falls depends on the employment and agency relationships and the specific facts of the case.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how Georgia law works as a matter of public legal education, and it does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular course of action. Reading this article, or contacting the website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author.
The law changes over time. Statutes, regulations, court rules, and judicial decisions discussed here may have been amended, repealed, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication, and citations to specific code sections or cases reflect the law only as it was understood when this article was written. The application of any legal principle also depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of an individual matter, and outcomes vary from case to case.
For these reasons, no one should rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed Georgia attorney who can review the particular facts involved. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken based on this content.