Summary judgment for defendant hospital is affirmed.  The doctor who malpracticed in conducting an operation on plaintiff at defendant hospital was not the hospital’s actual agent.  The contract between the two expressly denied any agency or employment relationship, and there was no evidence that the hospital exercised any control over the manner in which the doctor treated his patients.  The doctor was not the hospital’s ostensible agent.  The patient was referred to the doctor not the hospital, and signed a consent form expressly stating that doctors were not the hospital’s agents or employees.  Webpages advertising the doctor’s joining an institute at the hospital did not give a reasonable person cause to believe the doctor was an employee or agent of the hospital as opposed to the institute.  And plaintiff admitted that before the operation he had not considered the relationship between doctor and hospital.