Court Opinion

ID: 9811767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:27:59.289225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:16.862673
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
concurring.
While concurring in the result, under the.circumstances of this case I am not prepared to say that an agent having entire charge of the principal’s business, or of some independent branch thereof, can never bind his principal by admissions made in the distinct line of his employment. Where a principal (for instance a wife, as in the present case), simply owns a business and leaves its entire management and control to a general agent, over whom she exercises no supervision whatever, it seems -to me that cases might arise where the inherent nature of the transaction ’would make his admissions binding upon her. How far a *207merchant having an open store into which he invites the public, is bound to protect them from insult or assault by his employees, I am not now prepared to answer. This question Cfiii not arise without legal admission or proof of the employment. A merchant can not be held to the strict obligations ,of an inn-keeper or a common carrier; but it seems to me that there must be some measure of duty resting upon him, arising either from public policy or in the nature of implied contract, to exercise reasonable care in protecting his customers from the tortious acts of his employees, especially when such acts are done under color of their employment.
MoNxgomeRV, J., dissents.