275 Pa. 303 | Pa. | 1923
Opinion by
Defendant owned two stores, located some distance apart. He personally conducted one of them; the other was under the management of Marino Giunta, an employee. John Faiola, a minor ten years of age, worked at the latter place cleaning, sweeping and performing other services about it, and at times assisting the truck driver in delivering groceries and fruit. He had been thus engaged for two years when he received a bump on the knee while moving some heavy barrels at the direction of Giunta, the injury developing into a disease of the marrow of the bone. In an action to recover damages, the court below directed a nonsuit because no express contract of employment had been shown, and a contract implied from the acts of others should not bind defendant and cause him to be subject to the penalty of
An agent’s authority to employ may be established by direct' evidence of its existence or facts showing an agent’s or employee’s course of dealing with others wherein similar contracts or contracts of like nature were made, of which the principal had knowledge and in which he acquiesced, or where the agent is clothed with general authority over a business that requires for its due execution the employment of individuals, and is thus held out to the world as a person authorized to employ. Private instructions to an agent may not empower him to act within the ordinary scope of duties entrusted to him, but the public or an interested person is not always bound by private instructions. The principal may be held responsible, though the particular acts are done in excess of such instructions (Adams Express Co. v. Schlessinger, 75 Pa. 246; Tanner v. Oil Creek R. R. Co., 53 Pa. 411, 417; Central, etc., Co. v. Thompson, 112 Pa. 118, 133), or where an agent of limited powers has been in the habit of managing the business committed to his care in a manner involving an enlargement of his powers with the knowledge and acquiescence of his principal; authority is then implied: Fee v. Adams Express Co., 38 Pa. Superior Ct. 83, 91.
The instructions may be in writing; here they are in parol. Defendant admits the store where the boy worked was in charge of Giunta as manager. While the latter’s duties were indefinitely described (defendant denies Giunta had any authority to employ), he was a manager in control. His duties involved a general direction of its business, the exercise of judgment or discretion in sales and purchases, and responsibility for its general upkeep and welfare. These duties would ordinarily raise an implied authority in such person to employ the assistance necessary to successfully conduct the business, plaintiff’s son being in that class: 31 Cyc. 1192 (see note 17). The
There was sufficient evidence of causal relation shown between the accident, injury and diseased condition of the bone. Dr. Taylor, replying to the question whether the injury caused this condition, states it was the cause of inflammatory action setting up, producing this resultant condition. Causal connection was a question for the jury, under proper instruction from the court. See Miller v. Director General of Railroads, 270 Pa. 330.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and a venire facias de hovo is awarded.