Daniel Zuckerman, a minor, and Elaine, his mother, brought a medical malpractice
ID: 1169633 • Letter: D
Question
Daniel Zuckerman, a minor, and Elaine, his mother, brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Joseph Antenucci and Dr. Jose Pena. Although the summons did not state that the two defendants were partners, the undisputed evidence at the trial established that this was their relationship and that the alleged acts of malpractice were done in the course of partnership business. The jury returned a verdict finding that Dr. Pena was guilty of malpractice but that Dr. Antenucci was not guilty of malpractice. The amount of the verdict was $4 million. Antenucci contended that he cannot be held liable on a partnership theory for the act of his partner. Is he correct? [Zuckerman v. Antenucci, 748 N.Y.S.2d 578 (A.D.)]
Explanation / Answer
No, he is not correct.
Reason: In a partnership business each and every partner should be held responsible for any misconduct done by other partner or partners. All partners have unlimited liabilities in a partnership business. The act of one partner can’t be ruled out by others. The malpractice may or may not be noticed by Mr. A; but he is still equally liable to pay the verdict amount.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.