This is аn action brought by Mrs. Bowman and her daughter against an employer for improper conduct on the part of its agent. The jury found for the defendant, judgment was entered on the verdict and the plaintiffs appeal.
, . . The story of the case, as presented m ,, .. ’ , .„ , , , .. the evidence on the plaintiffs behalf, ... ... ,, runs something like this. Mrs. Bowman, recently widowed, was called upon by a salesman of thе defendant insurance company and induced to sign an application for insurance for herself and a younger son. Her eighteen year old daughter signed a similar application. These applications were duly forwarded to the company and were put into the hands of one Bruno who served as “field underwriter” for his employer. As we understand it from the testimony, the field underwriter is supposed to call upon applicants for insurance and ascertain *333 whether the insurance applied for is an appropriate risk for the company to take, Among other things, he is supposed to , , , ., ,, complete and verify the medical history „ ,. 1 T j.x. v .. .» of the applicant. In the application for . . . , i . n insurance, signed by each plaintiff, there , , „ was а statement that the applicant was . . , ,1. , , - „„ not deal, dumb, blind, ruptured” and so „ ^ 11 j •. , • „ forth. The field underwriter was given ,, . . . ■. • the original application cards, which, m 1 ., , ,. -i addition to the above question, contained j sоme medical history and other informa- ,. , 1. j, . • , 1 • tion as to an applicant s height, weight, occupation and so on.
Bruno was not a physician and he was not authorized to make medical еxaminations of applicants. Nevertheless, he provided himself with a black bag which looked like a physician s kit and one day called upon Mrs. Bowman. He had with him the cards signed by Mrs. Bowman and her daughter. He identified himself as a doctor sent by the defendant insurance company. He not only asked questions and weighed the applicants but he made the type of intimate exаmination which would have been proper enough if he had been authorized to make an examination for the presence of a hernia. But it was obviously improper when not madе in the course of a medical examination. He conducted this . .. , examination upon both women, more , ,, ,, . thorough m the mothers case than that , „ , . , . , of the daughter, and then left. Subsequently the company s real physician cabed upon Mrs. Bowman.^ When they learned how they had been imposed upon both mother and daughter claimed result-mg physical illness.
Our question in this case is whether thеre is reversible error in the manner in which the case was submitted to the jury, The problem is wholly one of Pennsylvania law; our jurisdiction is based upon diversity only.
There would be no question about Bruno s individual liability. Such a contact as he inflicted upon plaintiffs is one called m the Restatement an offensive bodily contact. 1 The fact th a t permission for the touching was obtam- * ,. , ed by fraud vitiates the consеnt given by J the ad hoc patient. 2 The question is, , , ,, _ , , , . however, whether Bruno s conduct m this instance can be attributed to his em-P y •
The plaintiff has advanced the theory the company had a duty of protec-^ion which was not dеlegable and for the violation of which it is responsible even though its employee departed from the Une of duty. Cf. Restatement, Agency g 214 (1933). The often cited case of Craker v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 1875,
,T , . Nor do we think that we get help here , ,, . , „ .... from the myriad of cases m which a , , servant authorized to keep order or use „ , , , force under some circumstances uses too much force. E. g., Orr v. William J. Burns International Detective Agency, 1940
Argument is made that the employer was negligent either in hiring Bruno, failing to restrain him or failing to warn *334 plaintiff~ in advance that he was not a physician. The trial judge thought nothiiig of this argumеnt and neither do we. The testimony makes it pretty clear that as soon as his employer found out what Bruno did in this case and others Bruno was immediately discharged. 3
If the plaintif! is to recover hеre, recovery will be based upon the cases which hold a principal responsible for the deception practiced by his agent, notwithstanding the fact that the agent's fraud is not to help his principal but rather, in some cases, to injure him or at any rate to serve himself rather than his employer. The two sections of the Restatement, Agency (1933) which cover this situation аre sections 261 and 262. They read as follows:
261. Agent's Position Enables Him to Deceive.
"A principal who puts an agent in a position that enab1es~ the agent, while apparently acting within his authority, to commit a fraud upon third persоns is subject to liability to such third persons for the fraud.
"~ 262. Agent Acts for His Own Purposes.
"A person who otherwise would be liable to another for the misrepresentations of one apparently acting for him, under the rule stated in § 2G1, is not relieved from liability by the fact that the apparent agent acts entirely for his own purposes, unless the other has notice of this."
We think that these sections describe what happened in ihis cas'e. Fo11o~ing an application in which the medical questions were asked, Bruno was sent out to check on the applicants. He had the cards signed by plaintiffs which the jury could have found constituted a voucher for his authority. True the company did not give him the black bag. But it did give him the cards which entitled him to ask a good mahy questions. Although he went further than his instructions indicated and committed the tort on the plaintiffs, this was a kind of deceit which was well within the insignia of office with which he had been clothed. The fact that his fraud took the form of a tortious touching instead of a tortious securing of money from the victim is, we think, not important.
It is not surprising that the unusual facts of the instant case seem not to have come before the Pennsylvania courts. However, Mr. Justiсe Maxey quoted tion 261 of the Agency Restatement, set out above, with apparent approval in Bachman v. Monte, 1937,
the Pennsylvania court speaks of the rule that "`where one of two inno-. tent persons must suffer loss for the fraud of a third, the loss should fall on the one whose act facilitаted it.' " This quotation is takei~ from Ervin v. City of Pittsburgh, 1940,
There is some very broad language which seems to talk the other way in Littler v. Dunbar, 1950,
The learned trial judge told the jury that Bruno’s conduct had to be at least in part for the benefit of his employer at the time of thе act complained of. This was incorrect. See, for instance, the Howarth case, where the agent was acting against, not for, his principal’s interest. There is no doubt that the evidеnce shows that his employer’s interest was not in Bruno’s mind at that time. But we think, in the language of the Pennsylvania case, that it could be found that Bruno was armed by his principal with the means to do what he did and that the excess of his activities beyond his authority is at the principal s risk.
The preservation of the plaintiff’s rights through objections is not too clear, The trial judge met with counsel in chambers to discuss points for charge, The judge said that he had considered the cases submitted and on two occasions stated that the only basis for liability would be if Bruno was at least partially in the line of his duty when he examined plaintiffs. Points for charge were framed to accord with this theory. As we have already said, this was incorrect, But both counsel and court knew what the problem was, althоugh it was answered incorrectly. We think the case should be tried under the correct rules of law. Cf. United States v. Cumberland, 3 Cir., 1952,
The judgment of the district court will he reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,
Notes
. Restatement, Torts §§ 18, 19 (1934). Cf. Martin v. Jansen, 1920,
Pennsylvania has explicitly adopted the Restatement definition of a battery or tortious contact. Commonwеalth v. Bird, 1943,
. Commonwealth v. Gregory, 1938,
. There was evidence that at about the time of the acts involved in this case, Bruno made what he purported to be medical examinations on ~ve other female applicants for insurance.
. "ab- soiute~' power is~not quite clear. by "ab soiute~' power is~not quite clear.