15.4 Professional Negligence, Informed Consent & Negligence Per Se

Professional Negligence, Informed Consent & Negligence Per Se

1. Professional Standard of Care (Malpractice)

Professionals who offer specialized services to the public—including physicians, surgeons, attorneys, certified public accountants, architects, and structural engineers—are held to a heightened, specialized standard of care.

Standard of Care Defined

A professional is required to possess and exercise the knowledge, skill, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of that profession in good standing in similar communities (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 299A).

Ordinary Negligence vs. Professional Malpractice
├── Ordinary Negligence (RPP) ──▶ Custom is merely ADMISSIBLE evidence of reasonableness; jury decides.
└── Professional Malpractice ──▶ Custom DEFINES the legal standard of care as a matter of law; expert required.

The Role of Custom: The Definitive Legal Benchmark

In ordinary negligence cases, evidence of industry custom is merely evidentiary—the jury is free to find an entire industry's custom negligent (The T.J. Hooper). By contrast, in professional malpractice, custom sets the legal standard of care as a matter of law:

• If a physician, surgeon, or attorney conforms to the accepted, customary practice of their professional peers in good standing, the professional cannot be held liable in negligence as a matter of law, even if the patient or client suffered a tragic adverse outcome.
• Under the "respectable minority" or "two schools of thought" doctrine, a physician does not breach the standard of care by adopting a recognized method approved by a reputable minority of the profession, even if a majority of practitioners favor a different approach.
• Conversely, an unexcused departure from established professional custom constitutes a breach of the standard of care.

The Requirement of Expert Testimony

Because lay jurors lack the technical training to assess surgical protocols, pharmacological interactions, or complex estate tax filings, the plaintiff in a professional malpractice action must introduce expert witness testimony to establish:

1. The applicable customary standard of professional care; and
2. The defendant's deviation from that standard.

• The "Common Knowledge" Exception: Expert testimony is excused only where the professional's negligence is so glaringly obvious that a layperson's everyday common sense is sufficient to recognize breach (e.g., a surgeon amputating the healthy right leg instead of the diseased left leg, a dentist extracting the wrong tooth, or a surgical team leaving an eight-inch steel retractor inside an abdominal cavity).

Geographic Standards: The Evolution of Locality Rules

• Strict Locality Rule (Historical Common Law): Measured the physician's conduct exclusively against other doctors practicing in the exact same town or rural locality. (Largely repudiated due to the "conspiracy of silence" among small-town physicians unwilling to testify against colleagues).
• Similar Locality Rule (Transitional / Minority): Measures conduct against physicians practicing in the same or similar communities, taking into account geographic size, population density, and medical equipment availability.
• National Standard (Modern Majority): For board-certified specialists (e.g., board-certified cardiologists, neurosurgeons, radiologists), the standard of care is measured against a uniform nationwide standard, reflecting standardized board examinations, national medical journals, and uniform residency accreditation.

---

2. The Doctrine of Informed Consent

A distinct species of professional medical negligence is the failure to secure the patient's informed consent prior to a medical or surgical procedure (Canterbury v. Spence, D.C. Cir. 1972).

The Physician's Duty of Disclosure

Prior to performing a medical intervention, a physician owes an affirmative duty to disclose to the patient:

1. The nature and character of the proposed procedure;
2. The potential material risks, hazards, and complications;
3. The medically recognized alternatives (including the alternative of non-treatment); and
4. The anticipated probability of success.

Two Competing Disclosure Standards

Causation in Informed Consent Actions

To prevail on an informed consent claim, the plaintiff must prove objective causation:

• It is not enough that the undisclosed risk materialized and injured the patient.
• The plaintiff must prove that a reasonable prudent person in the patient's position would have declined the treatment had the material risk been disclosed.
• The patient's self-serving, hindsight testimony ("I never would have agreed to surgery if I knew there was a 2% risk of nerve damage") is insufficient if a reasonable person facing the medical crisis would have proceeded with the surgery regardless.

Recognized Exceptions to Informed Consent

1. Emergency: The patient is unconscious or incapacitated, immediate treatment is necessary to preserve life or limb, and no authorized surrogate is available.
2. Therapeutic Privilege: Extremely narrow common-law privilege where disclosure of the risk would so severely destabilize a psychologically fragile patient as to make rational medical decision-making impossible.
3. Commonly Known / Inherent Risks: Risks that are universally understood by laypersons (e.g., that an open surgical incision entails mild pain and risk of superficial infection).

---

3. Statutory Standards of Care: Negligence Per Se

Under the doctrine of negligence per se, a civil court adopts the requirements of a penal safety statute, penal ordinance, or administrative safety regulation to establish the civil standard of care, replacing the general Reasonable Prudent Person standard.

The Two-Prong Test

To establish negligence per se, the plaintiff must prove two mandatory legal requirements:

1. Class of Persons: The plaintiff belongs to the specific class of persons that the legislature intended the statute to protect; AND
2. Type of Harm: The injury suffered by the plaintiff is the specific type of risk, accident, or harm that the statute was enacted to prevent.

[ Safety Statute Violated ] + [ Plaintiff in Protected Class ] + [ Harm of Intended Type ] = Negligence Per Se (Duty & Breach Established)

Procedural Effect of Negligence Per Se

• Majority Rule: An unexcused violation of a qualifying safety statute conclusively establishes Duty and Breach as a matter of law.
  • Examiner Trap: Negligence per se does not establish complete liability! The plaintiff must still independently prove Cause-in-Fact, Proximate Cause, and Actual Damages.
• California Rule (Rebuttable Presumption): Under California Evidence Code § 669, a statutory violation creates a presumption of negligence. The defendant can rebut this presumption by proving they acted as a person of reasonable prudence desiring to comply with the law would have acted under the circumstances.
• Statute Inapplicable: If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either prong (e.g., the harm was outside the statute's purpose), negligence per se is rejected. The plaintiff must proceed under the ordinary common-law Reasonable Prudent Person standard.

Recognized Statutory Excuses (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 288A)

Even where the two-prong test is satisfied, a statutory violation does not constitute breach if the defendant establishes a recognized excuse:

1. Greater Harm / Safety Necessity: Compliance with the statute would have created a greater risk of physical harm to the actor or others than non-compliance (Tedla v. Ellman, N.Y. 1939 — pedestrians walked on the right side of the road in technical violation of a highway statute because heavy traffic on the left made compliance suicidal; held excused).
2. Incapacity / Impossibility: The actor was physically incapacitated or unable to comply despite exercising reasonable diligence (e.g., driver suffers a sudden, unprecedented heart attack; driver's brakes fail suddenly despite flawless professional inspection that morning).
3. Sudden Emergency: The actor was confronted with an emergency not caused by their own prior misconduct.
4. Reasonable Ignorance of Operative Facts: A tail light burns out unexpectedly while driving at night without the driver's knowledge.

---

4. Master Comparison Matrix: Standards of Care Across Actor Categories

---

5. Practical Exam Hypotheticals & FYLSE Traps

Trap Scenario 2: The Intellectually Challenged Driver

Hypothetical: Simon, an adult with an IQ of 70 and severe cognitive processing deficits, obtains a driver's license through an administrative clerical error. While driving down a suburban street, Simon spots a ball rolling into the roadway. Simon concentrates intensely and attempts to apply the brakes with all the intellectual power he possesses, but his sluggish cognitive processing causes him to react two full seconds slower than an average driver, striking a parked car. The car's owner sues Simon for negligence.

Analysis: Simon will argue that he exercised the absolute best judgment and reflexes of which his personal mind was capable. Under the common law, this defense fails completely (Vaughan v. Menlove). The RPP standard is strictly objective. The law does not tailor the standard of care to Simon's individual mental infirmities. He is held to the standard of a person of ordinary mental capability and reflexes, and is liable in negligence.

Trap Scenario 3: The Technical Highway Violation

Hypothetical: Brenda walks on the right-hand shoulder of a rural road at night facing traffic. A municipal ordinance mandates walking on the left shoulder. However, the left shoulder is completely submerged in three feet of freezing water from a recent flash flood. A speeding motorist drifts onto the right shoulder and hits Brenda. The motorist claims Brenda is contributorily negligent per se for violating the shoulder ordinance.

Analysis: Under Tedla v. Ellman, statutory violations are excused where compliance poses a greater danger than violation. Walking on the flooded left shoulder would have subjected Brenda to immediate freezing water hazards. Brenda's technical statutory violation is excused, defeating the motorist's defense of contributory negligence per se.