Q: Punitive damages for actions of ostensible agents

A: Under California law, a hospital can be held liable for punitive damages due to the actions of its ostensible agents, such as information services contractors, if certain conditions are met:

1. Ostensible Agency: The plaintiff must prove that the hospital held out the contractor as its agent, leading the plaintiff to reasonably believe that the contractor was acting under the hospital's authority.

2. Ratification: If a hospital employee endorsed or ratified the fraudulent actions of the ostensible agent, it may be considered an adoption of the agent's conduct, making the hospital liable for the actions.

3. Malice, Oppression, or Fraud: To award punitive damages, the plaintiff must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant (hospital) acted with malice, oppression, or fraud (California Civil Code section 3294).

- Malice: Conduct intended to cause injury or despicable conduct with willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.

- Oppression: Despicable conduct subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.

- Fraud: Intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact with the intention of depriving a person of property or legal rights, or causing injury.

4. Employer's Knowledge or Act: The plaintiff must prove that an officer, director, or managing agent of the hospital had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee/agent and employed them with conscious disregard, or authorized/ratified the wrongful conduct.

If these conditions are met, the hospital may be liable for punitive damages based on the actions of its ostensible agents that were ratified by a hospital employee. However, the specific facts of the case and the evidence presented will ultimately determine the outcome in court.