978-1259638855 Chapter 36 Part 2

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Chapter 36 – Third-Party Relations of the Principal and the Agent

36-8

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

employee’s act is outside the scope of employment when it occurs within an

independent course of conduct not intended by the employee to serve any purpose of

the employer. This test is not appreciably different from the Restatement (Second) test.

Examples: Problem Cases ## 8, 9, and 10.

With regard to the kind-of–act–authorized question, you might note the following

possibility. Why can’t employers just insulate themselves from respondeat superior

liability by giving their employees a blanket command not to commit torts? It would

be too easy for employers to evade their responsibility to protect victims of their

behavior in question. Thus, a delivery driver who exceeds the speed limit while on a

rush job probably is covered, but a driver who shoots another driver after a traffic

altercation almost certainly is not.

d. You might add that additional problems sometimes arise when the tort was committed

tools from the second employer, and/or serves that employer for a substantial period of

time.

3. Direct Liability

a. Be sure the class understands that it is the principal’s culpability that is the basis of

negligence. See Restatement (Third) section 7.05.

b. Where the principal directed the agent’s conduct and intended that it occur, note that

the agent to engage in an ultrahazardous activity.

c. Discuss the various ways that the principal can be directly liable for his negligence

regarding the agent. Another possibility is failure to warn.

d. Note that direct liability and respondeat superior liability can arise at the same time.

e. Millan v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (p. 981). Here both direct liability and

respondeat superior are at issue. The case excerpt focuses on the latter.

36-9

forging his mother’s signature on numerous occasions, stealing statements from his

mother’s mailbox, creating and sending bogus statements to his mother, and opening a

authority as a broker.

In the dissent (which is not included in the text), Justice Stone noted that Miguel was

entrusted by Dean Witter with the power to open brokerage accounts for clients,

receive deposits, make purchases of securities as directed by clients, and sell them as

directed. His general scope of authority comprised these acts. His misuse of

defraud a customer.

Additional Point for Discussion: Ask your students whether and why they agree with

Justice Angelini or Justice Stone. It is relevant that both justices were willing to find

Dean Witter 15% liable for direct liability? Isn’t that the right grounds to make Dean

Witter responsible, for its failure to supervise Miguel to discover and prevent his

Angelini disagreed.

f. Ethics in Action (p. 981): There is no question that the doctrine of respondeat

superior encourages employers to do a better job selecting, training, and supervising

employees. That is one of purpose of tort law: deterrence. Respondeat superior in its

present form probably discourages some businesses from using some employees, at

the cost to society of imposing liability on innocent businesses outweighs the benefits

to tort victims, especially if the effect is to drive innocent businesses from the field.

The categorical imperative would suggest that we would not want a universal rule of

absolute employer liability for employees’ torts. A believer in justice theory may

protection from liability.

g. Log On (p. 981): This website provides good advice to help employers avoid direct

and vicarious liability for acts of an employee.

4. Liability for Torts of Nonemployee Agents (Independent Contractors). Principals are

liable for the torts of a nonemployee agent. In addition, a principal may ratify a

nonemployee agent’s torts. See Restatement (Third) section 7.04.

Example: Problem Case # 8.

5. Liability for Agent’s Misrepresentations

Chapter 36 – Third-Party Relations of the Principal and the Agent

36–10

a. Begin by noting that this is a problem that straddles contract and tort, and that its

resolution depends in part on the agent’s authority.

b. In this context, the principal may be subject to direct liability (based on his own

importance.

c. When discussing the principal’s imputed liability for the agent’s misrepresentations,

d. Emphasize why both honest and dishonest principals may desire to put exculpatory

clauses in form contracts the agent completes. Also, stress that the principal’s interests

E. Tort Liability of the Agent: After stating the general rule that agents are liable for their own

torts, discuss the fairly simple exceptions in the text and the relevant examples. Note that the

Example: Problem Cases ## 11 and 12.

F. Note that in many cases both principal and agent will be liable. In the battle between the

principal and agent, the text provides some guidance on who will ultimately bear

responsibility.

G. Log On (p. 984): Students may be surprised how extensively sports agents are regulated. You

might want to ask students whether it is fair that a college athlete cannot sign a contract with

IV. RECOMMENDED REFERENCES

See the references for Chapter 35.

V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM CASES

1. No on the loan, but yes on the Enron purchase. There is no actual (express or implied)

authority to purchase Enron shares or borrow from Wells Fargo, as Bravario did not expressly

manifest or communicate to Hermano that she could buy Enron shares or borrow money to do

Chapter 36 – Third-Party Relations of the Principal and the Agent

36–11

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

whoever sold the Enron shares to believe that Hermano had the authority to buy the Enron

shares for Bravario. There is nothing necessarily unusual about buying Enron, even though it

is selling for only 7 cents per share. Also, investing $70,000 is only 10% of Bravario’s

portfolio, which is not unusual for investors, even thought it exceeds Hermano’s normal 5%

limit.

2. No. There was no express authority for Mr. Opp to limit the carriers’ liability to Mrs. Opp,

because there was no evidence that Ms. Opp explicitly granted authority to Mr. Opp to bind

him the authority to reduce the carriers’ liability. This conclusion is bolstered by the court’s

acceptance of Ms. Opp’s testimony that she was never informed by the carriers that the person

replacement value protection on her goods. Soraghan’s form lacked any indication that Mr.

Opp was her agent, as Ms. Opp left blank the “lawful representative” space on the form. The

discussed her property valuation with Mr. Opp. Opp v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., 231 F.3d

1060 (7th Cir. 2000).

3. No. This case covers a common context: a temporary employment agency provides workers to

a business. Since the temporary employment agency (Work Connection in this case) does not

responsibility to Universal. Work Connection relied on ratification of the contract because it

never expressly got Universal’s agreement to assume responsibility for the employees.

showing that Universal accepted the benefits of the contract, that is, the services of the

employee covered by the contract. The court found that ratification was lacking, because

4. No. Although the court found that any notice or knowledge received by an officer or agent

authorized to receive the same is imputed to the corporation itself, the court applied an

Chapter 36 – Third-Party Relations of the Principal and the Agent

36–12

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

as to practically destroy the agency relationship, there is no imputation of knowledge to the

principal. The court found it clear that Drutchal acted inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to

Adventure Quest in this case. The sexual assaults on a customer of Adventure Quest, if

discovered, could destroy Adventure Quest’s ability to function. Drutchal acted adversely to

A.2d 607 (Md. Ct. App. 1994).

from its failure to perform. Cain v. State, 882 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. App. 1994).

7. The court held for Bradshaw in a suit based on the theory that the agent had breached his

implied warranty of authority. Reed was not successful. The documents that Reed signed but

agent may say, but can control what the third party thinks by disclosing limitations on the

agent’s authority in documents that the third party should read before signing. Reed v.

1996).

by performing the work assigned to him subject to Tube Art’s control. Massey v. Tube Art

Display, Inc., 551 P.3d 1387 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976).

retail representative who drives from store to store, the location of the conduct is within the

scope of his employment as well.

10. No. The court held that the franchisor could not be held liable because it had no control over

(Ky. 2008).

escape liability for a false statement that she intended the agent to make.

12. Possibly. QGM is liable, and its agent Schimberg may be liable also. The court found that

Chapter 36 – Third-Party Relations of the Principal and the Agent

36–13

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Texas law permits corporate agents to be liable for their own torts in many instances. A

corporate agent is personally liable for his own fraudulent or tortious acts. A corporation’s

employee is personally liable for tortious acts which he directs or participates in during his

employment. An employee may be held individually liable for an employer’s tortious acts if he

trial court to determine the facts, especially whether Schimberg acted only at the behest of his

superiors, which might release him from liability. Thule Drilling ASA v. Schimberg, 290 Fed.

Appx., 745 (5th Cir. 2008).