Dempsey v. Chambers
28 N.E. 279, 154 Mass. 330, 13 L.R.A. 219 (1891)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's subsequent ratification of an unauthorized act performed for their benefit, and in their name, retroactively establishes a master-servant relationship, making the defendant liable for negligence committed during that act.
Facts:
- A plaintiff ordered coal from the defendant.
- One McCullock delivered the coal to the plaintiff.
- While delivering the coal, McCullock negligently broke a plate-glass window belonging to the plaintiff.
- At the time of the incident, McCullock was not the defendant's servant, but the defendant subsequently ratified McCullock's delivery of the coal.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff initiated an action of tort in a trial court to recover damages for the broken plate-glass window.
- The trial court found as a fact that McCullock was not the defendant’s servant when he broke the window.
- The trial court also found that the defendant ratified McCullock's delivery of coal, which, in law, made McCullock the defendant's agent and servant.
- Based on these findings, the trial court ruled that the defendant became responsible for McCullock's negligence through ratification.
- The defendant then excepted to this ruling, appealing to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
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 defendant's subsequent ratification of an unauthorized person's act, performed for the defendant's benefit, establish a master-servant relationship retroactively, thereby making the defendant liable for that person's negligence committed during the act?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, J.
Yes, the defendant's ratification of McCullock's delivery of coal made the defendant responsible for McCullock's negligence. The Court acknowledged that while a new legal code might hesitate to impose liability for a bare tort merely by post-facto assent, it is bound to uphold principles established in the common law, even if their original policy grounds are archaic. The doctrine of ratification, where a subsequent agreement to an act done in one's name and for one's benefit amounts to a command, has long been part of common law. This principle, tracing back to early English law and Roman concepts (ratihabitio mandata comparatur), establishes that the ratification of an unauthorized act retroactively creates an agency or master-servant relationship. The court found that McCullock's negligent act was so connected with his employment (delivering the defendant's coal for his benefit) that if he had been a servant from the outset, the defendant would have been liable. Consistency with legal authority requires that the defendant's ratification of the employment establishes the master-servant relation ab initio, with all its incidents, including liability for negligent acts. This means the master is answerable for torts even if not specifically ratified or expressly forbidden.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the doctrine of ratification, extending its retroactive effect to create a master-servant relationship for the purpose of tort liability. It establishes that a principal cannot selectively ratify beneficial aspects of an unauthorized act while disclaiming responsibility for connected torts. The decision highlights the common law's adherence to historical legal fictions, even when modern policy considerations might suggest a different approach. This precedent makes it clear that by ratifying an agent's unauthorized actions, a principal assumes full responsibility, significantly impacting how principals manage and approve agents' conduct, particularly concerning potential vicarious liability for negligence.
