Opinion ID: 441741
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opti-Center

Text: 62 Opti-Center similarly challenges the instruction employed by the district court on the issue of corporate liability. The relevant portion of the charge read as follows: 63 To find a corporate defendant guilty, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that all the essential elements in the offense as set forth in these instructions are present to the corporation in the form of acts or omissions of its agents, which were performed within the scope of their employment. Whether the agents' acts or omissions were committed within the scope of their employment is a question of fact. To be acting within his employment, the agent first must have intended that his act would have produced some benefit to the corporation or some benefit to himself and the corporation second. 64 Opti-Center's complaint concerns the final sentence cited above, which it asserts is an erroneous statement of the law under Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 307 F.2d 120 (5th Cir.1962). Opti-Center asserts that the district court erred by not adopting its proposed instructions numbers 12, 13 and 14, which highlighted the holding in Standard Oil that the purpose to benefit the corporation is decisive in terms of equating the agent's action with that of the corporation. Id. at 128. To the extent that Opti-Center's requested instructions implied that an agent had to be acting for the exclusive benefit of the corporation for corporate liability to exist, however, they clearly misstate the law. The court in Standard Oil was faced with the question of whether a corporation could be held liable in a case where the criminal acts of its employees not only did not benefit the employer, but in some instances, at least, result[ed] in a theft of its property. Id. at 122. In this case, in contrast, the criminal acts of Opti-Center employees redounded to the benefit of both the corporation (which received the revenues generated by the improper claims) and its employees (who received bonuses based on their sales volume). The district court here therefore faced the question of how to treat the actions of employees who could be simultaneously pursuing both their own interests and those of their corporate employer--a situation which is markedly different from that which faced the Standard Oil court. The language employed by the district court here is clearly supported by Prosser's statement that in general the servant's conduct is within the scope of his employment if it is of the kind he is employed to perform, occurs substantially within the authorized limits of time and space, and is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master. Prosser, Torts Sec. 70 at 461 (4th ed. 1971) (emphasis added). See also United States v. Beusch, 596 F.2d 871, 877-78 & n. 7 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Demauro, 581 F.2d 50, 54 & n. 3 (2d Cir.1978). Because the charge utilized by the district court both accurately stated the law and properly reflected the distinct facts of this case, we must reject the argument advanced by Opti-Center.