LIABILITIES 79 
they are not his employees unless he is negligent 
in permitting them to do so.’’ 24 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. 27Carpenter 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. 
26Graham y. Gautier, 21 
Tex. 111. 
