In Clark, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth a test a plaintiff must meet in order to hold a hospital vicariously liable under the doctrine of agency by estoppel. The court based its test on numerous such decisions from jurisdictions across the country. However, the legal soundness of Clark and the decisions on which it relied is questionable, as many of these jurisdictions misapplied the legal doctrines underlying agency by estoppel theory. This article analyzes the legal doctrines on which agency by estoppel is based, how this theory of vicarious liability has evolved in Ohio, and how state courts across the country have applied and misapplied this theory.
Note, Clark v. Southview Hospital: Ohio Follows the Nationwide Trend of Using Agency by Estoppel to Impose Strict Liability on Hospitals, 9 J.L. & Health 319 (1994-1995)