Redditt v. Singer Manufacturing Co. , 124 N.C. 100 ( 1899 )

Douglas, J.,

concurring with some qualifications, and Clark and MONTGOMERY, J.J., concur in the concurring opinion of Douglass, J.

The defendant is a corporation in the State of Virginia, manufacturing sewing-machines, and has a State agent and sub-agents in North Carolina, and the plaintiff was one of the agents for selling the machines. The defendant’s State agent was directed by the defendant to take possession of the machines in plaintiff’s hands and to have a settlement with plaintiff and collect the amount due by plaintiff for machines already sold. The agent brought an action of claim and delivery for the machines, and they were delivered, and pending negotiations in making the settlement the plaintiff alleges that said agent used and uttered slanderous words of and concerning the plaintiff, and he institutes this action for damages, against the defendant corporation, resulting from the utterance of such slanderous words by said agent. There is no allegation nor any proof that said slanderous words were spoken by the authority or consent of the defendant, or that they have been ratified.

At tbe close of tbe plaintiff’s evidence tbe defendant demurred and made a motion to dismiss tbe action, on tbe ground tbat tbe defendant is not liable for damages for tbe alleged slanderous words of its agent. Tbe motion was refused and exception entered.

Tbe Court charged tbe jury tbat “a corporation is responsible for slanderous words uttered by its agent in tbe course, and scope of sucb agent’s employment, and in aid of the company’s interest.’.’ Exception.

This charge presents tbe decisive question in this case.

An examination in detail of tbe numerous authorities and decisions would be a tedious undertaking, and it may be remarked tbat a careful examination into tbe facts in each would reconcile many apparent conflicts. It is a fundamental principle tbat tbe law shall fit tbe facts in every case. A few general propositions may be stated:

1. Tbat a corporation, contrary to tbe early cases, is now liable to civil and criminal actions under tbe same conditions and circumstances as natural persons are.

2. Tbat, as a corporation must do business through agencies, it is liable for tbe misconduct of its agents, in tbe line of their duty, if they act under the express or implied authority of tbe company, or their tortious acts are ratified, as by taking tbe benefits of sucb misconduct.

3. Tbat when liability is established and tbe circumstances are aggravating or malicious, tbe company is subject to punitive damages, on tbe same principle tbat natural persons are.

Erom our examination we think, in a vast majority of tbe cases, tbat tbe principle is recognized tbat in some way tbe company must authorize or approve tbe tortious act of its agent, and tbat it would be unreasonable to bold tbe company liable on a bare presumption, in tbe absence of allegation or any proof of authority or ratification.

If A sends bis servant down town to purchase goods, and in the act of purchasing the servant should slander, by words, or assault the merchant, it would be a violent presumption that the master approved or had authorized such misconduct, and it would be unreasonable to hold him responsible without something indicating his approval. The principle which we approve is well stated in State v. Railroad, 23 N. J. Law, 369: “If a corporation has itself no hands with which to strike it may employ the hands of others; and it is now perfectly well settled, contrary to the ancient authorities, that a corporation is liable civiliter for all torts committed by its servants or agents by authority of the corporation, express or implied. The result of the modern cases is that a corporation is liable civiliter for torts committed by its servants or agents, precisely as a natural person, and that it is liable as a natural person for the acts of its agents done by its authority, express or implied, though there be neither a written appointment under seal nor a vote of the corporation constituting the agency or authorizing the act.” This view is cited and approved in Denver Railway v. Harris, 122 U. S., 608, and cases referred to.

Hussey v. Railroad, 98 N. C., 34, was on demurrer, and looking at the opinion (not the syllabus) we see nothing in conflict with the view'- we are taking.

In some respects the present case is similar to Daniels v. Railroad, 117 N. C., 592, but not so in all respects. That was an action against a common carrier, owing important duties to the public, subject to the demands of the public, within the range of its chartered duties, and the defendant was held to a strict discharge of its duties as such carrier,

' on the ground of public policy.

In the present case the defendant is a private corporation, owing no duty to the public, on whom the public can make no demand. It may make and sell machines at its own will and pleasure. The public has and feels no more interest in the manner of its business transactions than in that of any other individual business enterprise.

We think there was error in law, and this makes any further discussion unnecessary..

Error.