LIABILITIES 79 



they are not his employees unless he is negligent 

 in permitting them to do so. ' ' ^^ This is a general 

 rule, applicable in public hospitals, or in private 

 hospitals which are not under the control of the 

 physician or surgeon in the case,^^ but, since vet- 

 erinary hospitals are seldom if at all public in 

 ownership and control, this rule has less appli- 

 cation in veterinary practice in hospitals. It does 

 apply in private practice. It is the duty of a phy- 

 sician to give proper instruction for the care and 

 nursing of his patient, but it is not his duty to do 

 the nursing.-^ It then becomes the duty of the 

 owner of the animals under treatment to furnish 

 the needed care and attendance, and negligence on 

 the part of such attendants could not be properly 

 charged to the attending veterinarian. 



When, however, the negligence of the attendant 

 is the result of the neglect of the attending physi- 

 cian to give proper instructions, even though the 

 attendant may have been hired by the patient, or, 

 in the case of animals, by the owner, the physician 

 or veterinarian may properly be held for the negli- 

 gence. It is the duty of the physician to give 

 proper directions for the care of his patient.^'^ 



Where the physician or veterinarian is re- 

 sponsible for the hire and control of assistants, 

 under the rule of respondeat superior he would 

 be liable for their acts of nonfeasance, malfeas- 

 ance, or misfeasance, in so far as injury might 



24 Reynolds v. Smith, 127 N. 27 Carpenter v. Blake, 60 

 W. 192, 148 Iowa 264. Barb. 488; Pike v. Honsinger, 



25 Perionowsky v. Freeman, 4 155 N. Y. 201; Beck v. German 

 Foster & Finlason, 977. Klinik, 78 Iowa 696. 



20 Graham v. Gautier, 21 

 Tex. 111. 



