Instructions
M Civ JI 38.01 Agency Relationship: Definitions of Agent and Principal
M Civ JI 38.10 Agency: Apparent Agency Relationship
M Civ JI 38.20 Vicarious Tort Liability Based on Ostensible Agency (For Cases Other Than Medical Malpractice
An “agent” is a person who is authorized by another to act on [his / her / its] behalf. The [person / entity] who has given the authority and has the right to control the agent is called the “principal.”
*(The agent’s authority may be expressed or implied.)
Note on Use
*The sentence in parentheses should be used only if applicable.
Comment
Burton v Burton, 332 Mich 326; 51 NW2d 297 (1952).
History
M Civ JI 38.01 was added May 1999. TOP
The plaintiff claims that [name of person] was acting as the defendant’s agent. The defendant is bound by the acts of [name of person] as [his / her] agent if
- the defendant put [name of person] in such a situation that an ordinary person familiar with the particular type of business involved in this matter would be justified in assuming that [name of person] had the authority to act on behalf of the defendant,
- the plaintiff assumed that [name of person] had the authority to act on behalf of the defendant, and
- the plaintiff was justified in assuming that [name of person] had the authority to act on behalf of the defendant.
Note on Use
This instruction does not apply in tort cases. See Grewe v Mount Clemens General Hospital, 404 Mich 240; 273 NW2d 429 (1978); Johnston v American Oil Co, 51 Mich App 646; 215 NW2d 719 (1974).
Comment
Central Wholesale Co v Sefa, 351 Mich 17; 87 NW2d 94 (1957); Faber v Eastman, Dillon & Co, 271 Mich 142; 259 NW 880 (1935).
History
M Civ JI 38.10 was added January 1999. TOP
Under certain circumstances, a defendant may be liable for the actions or omissions of a person who is not actually [his / her / its] agent or employee. In this case, plaintiff claims that defendant is liable based on negligence of [name of ostensible agent or employee].
In order to establish the liability of defendant under this theory, plaintiff has the burden of proving all of the following:
- Defendant intentionally or negligently made representations that [name of ostensible agent] was [his / her / its] employee or agent;
- On the basis of those representations, plaintiff reasonably believed that [name of ostensible agent] was acting as an employee or agent of the defendant;
- Plaintiff [was injured / sustained damage];
- Plaintiff [was injured / sustained damage] because [he / she] relied on [name of defendant] to provide employees or agents who would exercise reasonable skill or care;
- [Name of ostensible agent] was negligent;
- The negligence of [name of ostensible agent] was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s [injury / damage].
Your verdict will be for the plaintiff if you find that all of these elements have been proved.
Your verdict will be for the defendant if you find that any one of these elements has not been proved.
Comment
Johnston v American Oil Co, 51 Mich App 646; 215 NW2d 719 (1974); Thomas v Checker Cab Co, 66 Mich App 152; 238 NW2d 558 (1975); Little v Howard Johnson Co, 183 Mich App 675; 455 NW2d 390 (1990).
History
M Civ JI 38.20 was added May 2000. TOP