Opinion ID: 1164042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the failure to instruct on agency

Text: During the first trial, in the presence of the jury, the court below stated correctly that J.C. Penney would be vicariously liable for the acts of Susan Baxter, the security guard, whether she was merely an employee of an independent contractor, O'Neill Investigations, or an agent of J.C. Penney. [13] However, at both trials the judge gave the following instruction: No. 9 J.C. Penney Company is a corporation and as such can act only through its officers and employees. Any act or omission of an officer or employee within the scope of his authority or employment is, in law, the act or omission of such corporation. There were many references during the trial pertaining to Susan Baxter's employment status. She testified twice that she was employed solely by O'Neill Investigations, and this was stressed by J.C. Penney. The trial judge asked questions distinguishing employment by J.C. Penney and O'Neill Investigations. Although there was some effort to clear up the matter when the trial judge stated: Mrs. Dickerson, the Court has ruled that even if O'Neill Investigation was an independent contractor that nevertheless the acts of their employee would be  or rather J.C. Penney's would be vicariously liable for the act of their employee. this statement is still confusing and apt to be misleading due to ambiguity as to the employee referred to. Since the instruction that J.C. Penney could act only through their employees or officers implies that agents or employees of independent contractors are not included, it is a misstatement of the law and prejudicial error. We hold that on remand the trial judge should instruct the jury with reference to liability imposed for acts of an agent or employee of an independent contractor. [14]