Opinion ID: 2106827
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Cause of Action Against Associated Collectors of Shilling Service

Text: [26, 27] The plaintiff's cause of action against Associated Collectors is based on the theory that it is liable for the torts of its agent Mr. Koll. The plaintiff alleges that Joseph G. Koll was appointed over all the property of the plaintiff and as such was so appointed and conducted himself as an agent of the Associated Collector of Service Incorporated. A corporation can be held liable for the torts of its officers while acting within the scope of their  employment and committed in the course of their employment. 10 Fletcher's Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations, sec. 4877 (Rev. ed. 1978). However, the complaint merely alleges that Mr. Koll is president of Associated Collectors and conducted himself as an agent of Associated Collectors in acting as receiver. The plaintiff contends that a trial will show Mr. Koll acted with apparent authority to bind Associated Collectors. However, concepts of apparent authority are used to bind the principal contractually. Corporate liability in tort, as alleged in this case, must be predicated on a theory of respondeat superior. To establish liability of the corporation in tort for the acts of its officers, the act complained of must be in the scope of the officer's authority and in the course of his employment. No such allegation is made. Compare: Arsand v. City of Franklin, 83 Wis.2d 40, 264 N.W.2d 579 (1978). The acts which the plaintiff contends will give rise to liability on the part of Associated Collectors are Mr. Koll's position as the president of Associated Collectors and his decision to direct all correspondence and notices concerning the Candee receivership to him at his business address at Associated Collectors. These allegations do not show that in acting as receiver for Mr. Candee's property Mr. Koll was acting within the scope of his employment as president of Associated Collectors. The plaintiff has no possible claim against Associated Collectors on a theory of respondeat superior, and the demurrer of Associated Collectors was properly sustained with prejudice.