Ploof v. Putnam
83 Vt. 252, 75 A. 277, 1910 Vt. LEXIS 186 (1910)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is liable for the willful and malicious acts of an employee if those acts are committed in furtherance of the employer's business and within the general scope of the employee's employment, rather than for the employee's own personal purposes.
Facts:
- The defendant owned an island in Lake Champlain and employed a man named Williams as its sole caretaker.
- Williams' duties included keeping trespassers and intruders off the property, and he was specifically instructed that the defendant did not want people tying boats to his wharf.
- The plaintiff attempted to tie his boat to the defendant's wharf under what the court referred to as 'peculiar circumstances' that made interfering with the boat improper.
- After the plaintiff swore at him, Williams cast off the plaintiff's rope from the wharf.
- Williams testified that he cast off the rope in furtherance of his employer's orders.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court for damages caused by the defendant's employee.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the judge instructed the jury that the employee's act of casting off the plaintiff's rope was, as a matter of law, within the scope of his employment.
- The defendant excepted to this jury instruction, preserving the issue for appeal.
- Following a judgment against him, the defendant (appellant) appealed to this court, arguing the trial court erred in giving that instruction.
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 an employer liable for the willful and improper act of his employee when the act was of a type the employee was authorized to perform and was done in furtherance of the employer's business, not for the employee's personal reasons?
Opinions:
Majority - Powers, J.
Yes. An employer is liable for the willful act of his employee if the act was done within the scope of employment and intended to serve the employer’s purposes. The modern rule of respondeat superior holds that the primary test for employer liability is not the character of the employee's act (i.e., whether it was negligent or willful), but its purpose. The court repudiated the old doctrine that a master was not liable for a servant's malicious acts. Here, Williams, as the property's caretaker, had implied authority to remove trespassers, which included preventing boats from tying up to the wharf. Casting off the rope was an act within the 'class of acts' he was hired to perform. Although the act was improper under the specific circumstances, the evidence showed Williams performed it to carry out his employer's instructions, not for personal caprice or malice. The fact that the plaintiff swore at him was insufficient to prove that Williams acted for his own purposes. Therefore, because the act was done within the scope of employment and for the employer's benefit, the employer is liable as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the adoption of the modern 'motive' or 'purpose' test for respondeat superior in the context of intentional torts. It moves the legal analysis away from the nature of the employee's act itself and toward the reason the employee acted. The case establishes that an act can be within the scope of employment even if it constitutes an excessive or mistaken execution of authority. This has significant implications, broadening employer liability and underscoring that even forbidden or malicious acts can lead to liability if they are performed in an attempt to serve the employer's interests.
