Lexplug logoLexplug

Fitscher v. Rollman & Sons Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals
1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 552, 31 Ohio App. 340, 167 N.E. 469 (1929)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer cannot be held liable for punitive damages for the wrongful acts of its agent unless the employer authorized, ratified, or participated in the agent's wrongdoing.


Facts:

  • The Rollman & Sons Company operated a department store and employed the Cal Grim Detective Agency for security.
  • Miss Silverman, an operative for the detective agency, was working in the store.
  • On January 11, 1927, Ida W. Fitscher was in the Rollman store shopping.
  • After Fitscher left the store, Silverman followed her onto the sidewalk and accused her of taking a pair of stockings without paying.
  • Fitscher returned to the store with Silverman, went to the tenth floor, and met with the store manager, Mr. Thoman.
  • Thoman declined to settle the matter and told Fitscher she must go to their adjusting office across the street at the Cal Crim Detective Agency.
  • At the detective agency, Fitscher signed a written confession for the theft of one pair of stockings and paid $1.39 for them.
  • Fitscher later claimed she signed the confession under duress and fright.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ida W. Fitscher sued The Rollman & Sons Company in a trial court, alleging false imprisonment and slander.
  • The case was tried before a jury.
  • The jury returned a general verdict for the defendant, The Rollman & Sons Company.
  • The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant.
  • The plaintiff, Ida W. Fitscher, as appellant, prosecuted an error appeal from that judgment to the Court of Appeals of Ohio.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a corporation liable for punitive damages based on the malicious conduct of its agent if the corporation did not authorize, ratify, or participate in the wrongdoing?


Opinions:

Majority - Hamilton, J.

No, a corporation is not liable for punitive damages for its agent's conduct unless the corporation itself is culpable. Punitive damages are intended to punish personal guilt, and an employer cannot be punished for the personal guilt of its servant or agent unless the employer authorized, ratified, or participated in the wrongdoing. In this case, there is no evidence that The Rollman & Sons Company, through its management, by word or act, authorized, ratified, or participated in any wrongful actions by the detective. The company's only direct involvement was a manager declining to accept payment and directing the parties to another office, which does not meet the standard for imposing punitive damages.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces a significant limitation on the doctrine of respondeat superior, specifically concerning punitive damages. By requiring proof of the principal's own culpability—through authorization, ratification, or participation—the court shields corporations from punishment for the unauthorized malicious acts of their employees. This raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking punitive damages against corporate defendants, forcing them to find evidence linking the wrongful act directly to corporate policy or management decisions. The ruling solidifies the distinction between compensatory damages (for which a principal is broadly liable for agents' acts within the scope of employment) and punitive damages (for which the principal's own fault must be proven).

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Fitscher v. Rollman & Sons Co. (1929) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Fitscher v. Rollman & Sons Co.