Cowan v. EASTERN RACING ASSOCIATION, INC.
111 N.E.2d 752, 1953 Mass. LEXIS 432, 330 Mass. 135 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held vicariously liable for an assault committed by its employees if the employer possessed the right to control the employees' actions, and the existence of this right is a question of fact for the jury. This principle applies even when the employees are police officers or officials whose duties are also governed by a separate regulatory body.
Facts:
- Cowan, a paying customer at the Suffolk Downs racetrack, owned by Eastern Racing Association, Inc., placed a bet on a horse that finished first but was subsequently disqualified by the race stewards.
- Seeking an explanation, Cowan crossed the track and entered the stewards' stand.
- Inside the stand, Cowan spoke with steward Almy while another steward, Conkling, approached and kicked Cowan in the shins.
- Conkling then summoned two Boston police officers and instructed them to, "Throw the son of a bitch out."
- The two police officers proceeded to brutally beat Cowan with their billies, causing severe injuries.
- Both the stewards (including Conkling) and the police officers on duty were appointed and paid by Eastern Racing Association, Inc.
Procedural Posture:
- Cowan sued Eastern Racing Association, Inc., in a Massachusetts trial court for tortious assault.
- The action was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Cowan.
- The defendant, Eastern Racing Association, Inc., moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The defendant filed exceptions to the trial court's denial of its motion, to portions of the judge's charge, and to the admission of certain evidence, bringing the case to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a business owner have a sufficient right of control over stewards and on-premises police officers it appoints and pays, such that the owner can be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an assault they commit on a patron?
Opinions:
Majority - Counihan, J.
Yes. An employer can be held vicariously liable for an assault by its agents if it had the right to control their actions, and the determination of whether such a right exists is a question of fact for the jury. The court reasoned that although the racing commission's rules governed the stewards' racing-related decisions, a jury could reasonably find that the defendant racetrack retained the right to control the stewards' actions related to maintaining order on its premises, as this furthered the defendant's business interests. Likewise, a jury could find that the police officers, hired and paid by the defendant to secure its private property, were acting as agents for the defendant's private purposes, not as public officers. Therefore, the question of the defendant's vicarious liability for the assault committed by the steward and the police officers was properly submitted to the jury.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of respondeat superior in situations involving employees with dual sources of authority, such as private security who are also public police officers. It reinforces that the primary test for vicarious liability is the employer's 'right to control,' not necessarily the actual exercise of control. The decision establishes that the existence of this right is a question of fact for the jury, making it more difficult for employers to dismiss such claims as a matter of law. This precedent holds businesses accountable for the tortious conduct of personnel they hire to maintain order, even if that conduct involves an excessive use of force beyond the employer's explicit instructions.
