Opinion ID: 1473631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Master's Liability for the Servant's Tort

Text: As such exceptions as were taken to instructions given or refused relate to the responsibility of the master for the tort of his servant, a brief discussion of the subject should precede the analysis of the instructions. It is accepted law that the master may be liable for the willful and malicious acts of a servant within the scope of employment. Thus, a master who authorizes the servant to do acts which may call for the use of force is liable, although the servant exceeded the boundaries of necessity in seeking to achieve the result. Restatement, 1 Agency, Secs. 243, 245; 57 C. J.S., Master and Servant, §§ 572, 575; 35 Am.Jur., Master and Servant, Secs. 552-554, 564; Johnson v. Monson, 1920, 183 Cal. 149, 190 P. 635; Stansell v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 1941, 44 Cal.App.2d 822, 113 P.2d 264; Andrews v. Seidner, 1942, 49 Cal.App.2d 427, 121 P.2d 863. At the same time, the master is not liable if the act of the servant was done with the sole intent of achieving an independent result. When this is the case, the mere fact that the act which caused the harm was done while the servant was acting in the employment and on the employer's premises would not result in liability. 35 Am.Jur., Master and Servant, Sec. 555; Restatement, 1 Agency, Sec. 245, Comment (d), p. 550. It is intimated in some cases that the act of the servant must be not only within the scope of his employment, but also be committed in the accomplishment of the objects of the employment. See, Barney v. Jewell Tea Co., 1943, 104 Utah 292, 139 P.2d 878. But an analysis of the cases so holding leads to the conclusion that the real basis for decision was that the particular tortious act was clearly unrelated to the accomplishment of any of the objects of the employment. Illustrative are the cases in which an employee whose duty is was to collect accounts or to call on customers engaged in an altercation with a customer. Barney v. Jewell Tea Co., supra; Moskins Stores, Inc., v. DeHart, 1940, 217 Ind. 622, 29 N.E.2d 948; Kastrup v. Yellow Cab and Baggage Co., 1929, 129 Kan. 398, 282 P. 742. Other cases, usually referred to as supporting this doctrine, are in the same category. Thus, the manager of an industrial concern, in publishing a libel concerning another, Washington Gas Light Co. v. Lansden, 1899, 172 U.S. 534, 19 S.Ct. 296, 43 L.Ed. 543; the porter of a sleeping car attacking a stranger who enters the car asking for the privilege of washing his hands. Williams v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 1888, 40 La. Ann. 87, 3 So. 631, 8 Am.St.Rep. 512. But see contra, when assault was on passenger. Dillingham v. Anthony, 1889, 73 Tex. 47, 11 S.W. 139, 3 L.R.A. 634, 15 Am.St.Rep. 753. And see also, Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Kirkbride, 1891, 79 Tex. 457, 15 S.W. 495. It can be seen readily that in all these cases, the act of the servant was totally unrelated to what he was hired to do. But in the case before us, we are dealing with a bartender, who, by the very nature of his employment, is in charge of the employer's premises and is charged with keeping order about them. An employment of this character is  in the language of the Restatement  one which is likely to bring the servant into conflict with others. Restatement, 1 Agency, Sec. 245, Comment (a), p. 548. Usually, a bartender is the sole employee on duty at a particular time. If, in exercising his control over the premises, he commits an assault upon another, the employer will be held liable. Stansell v. Safeway Stores, Inc., supra; Andrews v. Seidner, supra. The reason for the rule is well stated in Johnson v. Monson, 1920, 183 Cal. 149, 150, 190 P. 635: The question is not one of authority as between the principal and the agent. As between them, it may well be that the agent's tort against a third person is without authority or is directly contrary to express orders. But the principal is nevertheless liable for the tort of the agent, provided it be committed by him within the scope of his employment. That the assault in this case was committed within the scope of the bartender's employment is plain. To be sure there is nothing to show that he was authorized or employed to commit assaults, but it is found that he was authorized to maintain order in the saloon, and the assault was committed in the course of his keeping order.    The situation is not changed by the fact that the court finds the assault to have been malicious and willful. (Emphasis added.) And see, Sullivan v. People's Ice Corporation, 1928, 92 Cal.App. 740, 268 P. 934; Tighe v. Ad Chong, 1941, 44 Cal.App.2d 164, 168, 112 P.2d 20, 23; Haworth v. Elliott, 1944, 67 Cal.App.2d 77, 153 P.2d 804; Carr v. Wm. C. Crowell Co., 1946, 28 Cal. 2d 652, 654-655, 171 P.2d 5, 6-7; Fields v. Sanders, 1947, 29 Cal.2d 834, 839, 180 P.2d 684, 688-690, 172 A.L.R. 525. Mayo Hotel Co. v. Danciger, 1930, 143 Okl. 196, 288 P. 309; Hunt-Murry Co. v. Gibson, 1932, 157 Okl. 112, 11 P.2d 123.