Medical Staff Liability Arising from Colleagues, Trainees and Patients Actions In Medical Events

In tort's law, unlike the criminal law, it is hard to accept a person to be punished for someone else's crime. There are a multitude number of cases that a person is liable to compensate the damages which s/he has not involved in them. Responsibility, because of others deleterious actions is a sort of cases accepted by the legislator in regard of indirect responsibility for the alleged loss. In this paper it will be tried to answer a flood of questions such as: - Is the head of physicians responsible for damages caused by colleagues, students or his trainees? - Can a patient (who has involved in the hurts which damaged himself/herself) ask others to compensate the damages? and answer in profusion of other ambiguities to create necessary changes to ameliorate the flaws, and create a special system for recovery and specific legislations about the medical staff' tort or the obligations which arise from medical actions. The method for gathering data was: medical malpractice cases referred to Kerman forensic medicine organization for a Period of 1 year (June 2011-2012) and libraries and electronics by taking notes. In this study 85 cases reviewed randomly and the obtained information about the range of the sentenced physicians (who were sentenced because of other's actions such as colleagues or students) and also the range of the patient's faults (who were caused damages to themselves); filled in the registration forms and SPSS software was used to analyze and graph the data. 10% of head of the physicians were sentenced because of the conviction of other colleagues, while 57.5% were acquitted and 32.5% of the cases were not subjected to. In some cases the patient's faults is also one of the losses reasons whether this interference is coincident with the medical staff' faults or as a complement factor. There is no difference that the interference is physical, mental or economical. On the mature reflection on review of judicial verdicts seems that the legislator assumed legal liabilities to specific individuals and the issue is an exception to the general rules of liability; so, according to these obligations the damaged person must prove the others mistakes and the relationship between the mistakes and the created loss. While the legal presumption is removed to prove fault and cause relationship between the actions and the losses. In fact there is a legal and an incontrovertible reason about previous faults and cause relationship between the false action and the created loss.