Torts
Emory University v. Porubiansky, 248 Ga. 391, 282 S.E.2d 903 (Ga. 1981)
Study notes for Emory University v. Porubiansky: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Exculpatory clauses that release healthcare providers from liability for negligence are void as against public policy in Georgia.
Emory University v. Porubiansky addresses the enforceability of exculpatory clauses in the context of medical and dental practice. The court's decision was rooted in the principle that patients should not be able to waive their right to recover for negligence, particularly in settings where medical care is rendered for public benefit. Professors might focus on the court's reasoning that allowing such clauses undermines the integrity of medical practice and the safety of patients. The case is significant in illustrating the tension between personal autonomy to contract and societal interests in health and safety.
Don't let negligence be your waiver; care can't be excluded!
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Tunkl v. Regents of University of California | Tunkl upheld the invalidation of a liability waiver in a hospital, emphasizing the special relationship between patient and provider; both cases deal with public policy but under different contexts. |
| Gonzalez v. City of Atlanta | In Gonzalez, the court found a waiver enforceable because it pertained to recreational activity, distinguishing from the professional healthcare context of Porubiansky. |
Allowing exculpatory clauses in healthcare could lead to negligence without accountability, threatening patient safety and undermining trust in medical professions.
Opponents may argue that exculpatory clauses provide essential protections for institutions against frivolous lawsuits, which can impede their ability to offer low-cost services.
This case often appears on exams to assess students’ understanding of public policy limitations on contractual waivers of liability, especially in the healthcare context.