Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Advice
  • Published:

Santa's clause

BDJ In Practice volume 34, page 26 (2021)Cite this article

If there is one thing dental colleagues have heard a lot about this year, apart from COVID-19 and mandatory vaccinations, it is vicarious liability. If you are a practice owner you are unlikely to have missed the two legal cases, extensively covered by the BDA, involving two practice owners who were judged to be vicariously liable for the actions of their self-employed associates when they themselves had never seen the patients in question.

Whilst the concepts of non-delegable duty and vicarious liability are recognised as a way of ensuring that people who have been harmed by the action of another, obtain appropriate compensation, it has only recently been deployed by one law firm representing patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BDA Indemnity, London, UK

    Len D´Cruz

Authors
  1. Len D´Cruz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Len D´Cruz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D´Cruz, L. Santa's clause. BDJ In Pract 34, 26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-021-0984-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41404-021-0984-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links