Story Case

James Bass, a delivery wagon driver for Pugh & Company, was instructed, by his employer, never to drive his horses faster than a walk along Meridian Street in making deliveries. On the day when the accident noted below occurred, Bass was on this street making a delivery, and being late, he drove his horses in a trot. The street was crowded, and as a result of the rapid driving, a collision occurred, in which Frank Bell was severely injured. Bell brought an action against Pugh & Company for negligence of the servant. Pugh & Company put in as defense, the written authority, given to the servant, not to drive faster than a walk. Should this free them from liability?

Note: The rule, with reference to agent and servant, is the same throughout these cases.

Ruling Court Case. George Vs. Gobey, Volume 128 Massachusetts, Page 289

There was a Statute in Massachusetts, which provided, that any person who sold liquor to one who has the habit of using it to excess, after notice of his habit, and a request from the wife of such person, not to sell liquor to him, should be liable to a penalty to be recovered by the wife of such person.

The husband of the plaintiff was known to be an habitual drunkard. The wife had notified the defendant not to sell him liquor. Notwithstanding this, the defendant, through an agent, sold to the plaintiff's husband. This is an action to recover the penalty provided for the violation of the Statute. The defendant contended that he was not liable, because he had repeatedly forbidden his agent to sell to such persons.

Justice Soule delivered the opinion.

Although forbidden, the agent binds his principal by his wrongful acts, so long as he keeps within the scope of his employment. The Court said in part: "At common law, the master is responsible for the wrongful acts of his servant, done in the execution of the authority given by the master, and for the purpose of performing what the master has directed, whether the wrong done be occasioned by the mere negligence of the servant, or by wanton and reckless purpose to accomplish the master's business in an unlawful manner. But if the servant goes outside of the scope of the employment and does a wrongful act, for the purpose of his own, and not in the performance of his master's business, the master is not responsible for such act." The agent's employment was, in this case, to sell liquor, and clearly he was acting within the scope of his work. The defendant is liable for the penalty.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It is generally said that a principal, or a servant, is liable for all torts done by the agent, or servant, while acting within the course of his employment. That is to say, if the agent is carrying on, or purporting to carry on, his principal's business, and commits a tort, his principal is liable. It is not a valid defense for the principal to say that he did not authorize his agent to do the act in question, but expressly forbade it.

In the Story Case, Pugh & Company would be liable for the injuries caused by Bass, the servant, for the reason that, at the time of the injury, he was acting within the scope of the authority, even though in a manner expressly forbidden by the principal.