About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


56 Dick. L. Rev. 357 (October 1951 to June 1952)
Agency - Principal and Agent or Master and Servant

handle is hein.journals/dlr56 and id is 365 raw text is: RECENT CASES What then is the situation in Pennsylvania? It is this. When a bailor delivers his car to a bailee or his servant, pays the required consideration and in return receives the customary receipt, the bailee will be liable for any damage to or loss of the car caused by his own acts or those of his servant. And this rule applies even though the servant was acting outside the scope of his authority. According to Metzger v. Downton Garage Corp.,32 other Pennsylvania cases88 and the weight of authority in other states,84 the liability may be predicated on the bailee's breach of his contractual obligation. An action of this type would necessarily be brought in assumpsit in this Commonwealth. The bailor-car owner could also sue in trespass upon the theory that the bail- ment duty to use reasonable care was non-delegable. Jackson v. Ft. Pitt Hotel, Inc.'5 and Smith v. Cohen36 have apparently established such a rule.87 It would seem then that Pennsylvania is joining other jurisdictions in creating vicarious liability beyond the scope of employment. Roger D. Mulhollen AGENCY-PRINCIPAL AND AGENT OR MASTER AND SERVANT Chalupiak, the plaintiff in a recent case,' purchased a tract of land from the County Commissioners. Ht intended to purchase the specific tract which was assessed as the land of James Moore Heirs. This tract was not described by metes and bounds but it consisted of approximately 54 acres. The plaintiff hired a regis- tered engineer to prepare a survey and plan of this tract and he had the title thereto examined and approved by a lawyer. The survey and plan was inaccurate since it included therein some 30 acres of land which plaintiff did not own. Chalupiak, whom the court described as unlettered, believed he owned 80 acres of land. Armed with the erroneous survey and plan and his lawyer's approval plaintiff divided the entire tract into building lots and went to the office of the defendant to have him prepare a deed for one of the lots. The defendant Stahlman was a justice of the peace and a tax collector in addition to regular employment in a nearby factory. 82 n. 1. 88 n. 15. 84 n. 16. 85 n. 3. 86 n. 28. 87 The possibility of attaching mental distress and other parasitic claims to such an action in tort is be. yond the scope of the discussion here. Space also will not allow consideration of other difficulties that could arise if the theory here is extended generally to other bailment transactions. Parking lot cases alone have been treated here, but other types of bailment situations have been the subject of cases decided under this theory. The extent to which the theory has been enlarged and the instances in which it has been applied are discussed in 45 HARV. L. REv. 342. Also see 15 A.L.R. 2d 846. 88 An excellent article on this more general problem can be found in 45 HARV. L. REv. 342. 1 Chalupiak v. Stahlman, 368 Pa. 83.