My Bread Baking Co. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.
353 Mass. 614, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 700, 233 N.E.2d 748 (1968)
Rule of Law:
A corporation may be held liable for the tortious acts of its commonly controlled affiliate corporations when there is active and pervasive control, a confused intermingling of activities, and ambiguity about the capacities in which representatives are acting, leading to an injurious consequence.
Facts:
- In August 1960, Byron Haseotes, an officer and stockholder of Cumberland Farms, Inc. (C.F. Inc.) and its codefendants, discussed the sale of bakery products with Joseph Duchaine, the sole proprietor of My Bread Baking Co. (My Bread), for retail in “Cumberland Farms” stores.
- After August 1960, My Bread began selling its bakery products in the retail dairy stores and provided bakery racks, the title to which remained with My Bread at all times.
- At this time, C.F. Inc. operated a bottling and processing plant selling wholesale dairy products, while its five codefendant corporations operated chains of small retail dairy stores; all corporations were owned by the Haseotes family, shared officers and directors, and used the trade name “Cumberland Farms.”
- In 1962 or 1963, C.F. Inc. began selling its dairy products to all of the “Cumberland Farms” stores where My Bread was to sell its bakery products.
- Prior to the alleged conversion, all defendant corporations moved their principal offices to a consolidated plant in Canton, from which Haseotes, as a dominant figure, operated all businesses and decided the flow of money.
- In August 1963, Haseotes, acting as sales manager of C.F. Inc., sent circular memoranda on C.F. Inc. letterhead to retail stores, using mandatory language regarding the sale of bread, including My Bread products.
- In September 1963, upon termination of the business arrangement, My Bread sought the return of its racks.
- Local store managers, acting on Haseotes’ instructions, prevented My Bread from recovering most of its racks from the “Cumberland Farms” stores.
Procedural Posture:
- My Bread Baking Co. brought an action alleging conversion of certain property against Cumberland Farms, Inc. (C.F. Inc.) and several codefendants.
- A jury returned a substantial verdict for My Bread against C.F. Inc. and a verdict for each codefendant.
- C.F. Inc. filed an exception to the trial judge’s refusal to direct a verdict in its favor.
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 common stock ownership and management, combined with ambiguous intermingling of activities and pervasive control by a dominant figure within a single enterprise, provide sufficient grounds to hold a principal corporation liable for the tortious acts committed by employees of its commonly controlled affiliate corporations?
Opinions:
Majority - Cutter, J.
Yes, common ownership and management, combined with ambiguous intermingling of activities and pervasive control, provide sufficient grounds to hold a principal corporation liable for the tortious acts committed by employees of its commonly controlled affiliate corporations. The court affirmed that while corporations are generally regarded as separate entities, this principle is not unlimited, especially to defeat fraud, wrong, or remedy injuries. Liability may arise when a controlling person or corporation actively participates in another's operations, or when there is a confused intermingling of activity within a common enterprise with substantial disregard for separate corporate entities. The jury could reasonably conclude that Haseotes, a dominant figure in the closely coordinated “Cumberland Farms” enterprise (where C.F. Inc. could be seen as the principal corporation), acted for C.F. Inc. when dealing with My Bread and issuing instructions to store managers regarding the racks. The court highlighted the ambiguity concerning Haseotes's corporate capacity and C.F. Inc.'s role in the general wholesale distribution for the entire enterprise, allowing an inference that C.F. Inc. caused its satellite companies to convert the racks, acting as its agents. Thus, the court found sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding C.F. Inc. liable for the conversions, and the refusal to direct a verdict for C.F. Inc. was proper.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the circumstances under which courts may disregard the corporate fiction to impose liability on one corporation for the acts of another, even in the absence of a direct parent-subsidiary relationship. It underscores that while common ownership and management are not sufficient alone, pervasive control, a confused intermingling of operations, and a lack of clarity regarding corporate roles can justify holding a central entity responsible for affiliate torts. This ruling serves as a critical reminder for closely held corporate groups to maintain strict separation and clear delineation of responsibilities to avoid aggregate liability, especially when a dominant figure's actions blur corporate lines. It offers important guidance on the factors courts consider when evaluating whether to pierce the corporate veil or establish an agency relationship among related corporate entities.
