Question
Vrabel v. Acri
When is an individual liable for the actions of an agent? If partners are considered each other's agents, why wasn't Mrs. Acri held personally liable for the vicious attack her partner had committed against a patron of their establishment? Although she eventually won the case, her personal assets were at risk and she had to defend them in court. What could she have done once she realized that she would have no say in how the establishment was run, to protect her personal assets?
386 Part Four The Legal Evironment of Bsiness Operation a lE partnership assets are exhausted, each partner is individually liable. Crediton ir claims by looking to the assets of the individual partners after the partnership assets are exhausted rael Acr (Case 16.2) deals with an issue of partnership liability. CASE 16.2 v. Acri 103 N E.2d 564 (Ohio 1952) Shot Down in a Ma & Pa Cafe: Is Ma Liable When Pa Goes to Jail? However it is equally true that where one member of a partnership oryont enterprise commits a wrongful and FACTS malicious tort not within the actual or apparent sc of the agency, or the common business of the venture, to which the other members have not a and which has not been concurred in or ratified by th they are not liable for the harm thereby caused 7 Stephen Vrabel and a companion went into the Acri Cafe in Youngstown, Ohio, to buy alcoholic drinks. While Mr. Vrabel and his companion were sitting at the bar drinking, Michac! Acri, withou provocation, drew a 38-caliber gun, shot and killed Mr. Vrabel's companion, and shot and seriously injured Mr. Vrabel. Mr. Acri was con tenced to a life term in the state prison Because at the time of Vrabel's injuries and for a long time prior thereto Florence had been excluded victed of murder and sen prior thereto Florence and Michael cri, as partners, had owned from the Acri Cafe and had no voice or control and operated the Acri Cafe since 1933. From the time the Acri Cafe since 1933. From the time management, and because Florence did not have good reason to know that Michael was a of negligence urged by Vrabel is hardly tenable. of his marriage to Mrs. Acri in 1931 until 1946, Mr Acri ums for the treatment of mental disorders and nervous- ness. Although he beat Mrs. Acri when they had marital difficulties, he had not attacked, abused, or mistreated anyone else. The Acris separated in September 1946 and Mrs. Acri sued her husband for divorce soon after ard. Before their separation, Mrs. Acri had operated t of hospitals, clinics, and sanitari- ous individual prone to assault cafe patrons, the We cannot escape the conclusion, therefore, that the above rules, relating to the nonliability of a partner or joint adventurer for wrongful and malicious torts com mitted by an associate outside the purposes and scope of the business, must be applied in the instant case. The willful and malicious attack by Michael Acri upon and managed the cafe primarily only when Mr. Acri Vrabel in the Acri Cafe cannot reasonably be said to was ill. Following the marital separation and until the time he shot Mr. Vrabel, Mr. Acri was in exclusive have come within the scope of the business of operat- ing the cafe, so as to have rendered the absent Florence control of the management of the cafe accountable Mr. Vrabel brought suit against Mrs. Acri to recover damages for his injuries on the grounds that, as Since the liability of a partner for the acts of his Mr. Acri's partner, she was liable for his tort. The trial associates is founded upon the principles of agency court ordered her to pay Mr. Vrabel damages of $7,500. the statement is in point that an intentional and willful Mrs. Acri appealed. attack committed by an agent or employee, to vent his own spleen or malevolence against the injured person, is a clear departure from his employment and his prin cipal or employer is not responsible therefore. JUDICIAL OPINION ZIMMERMAN, Judge The authorities are in agreement that whether a tort is committed by a partner or a joint adventurer, the prin- CASE QUESTIONS ciples of law governing the situation are the same So where a partnership or a joint enterprise is shown to exist, each member of such project acts both as principal and agent of the others as to those things done within the apparent scope of the business of the project and for 2. Why was Mr. Acri not a defendant? Judgment reversed. 1. What was the nature of the business and the injury Why is this information important for hability purposes? its benefit 3. Is Mrs. Acri liable for the injuries? Explain.
Explanation / Answer
What was the nature of the business and the injury? Why is the information important for liability purposes?
In this specific case, the couple owned the specific Cafe before they separated.Mrs. Acri it was only responsible for looking after the cafe and managing the cafe when Mr. Acri was ill. After the couple was separated Mr. Acri took the charge of the cafe for the control as well as the management.
This information is very important for the liability purposes as it provides specific information about the case and clear sound the confusion of liability as well as setting up the defendants.
Why was Mr Acri not a defendant?
Mr. Acri was not a defendant because he already stayed in jail for the crime he committed. He was found guilty for murder and Already tried as well as he was already in the state present hence Mr. Acri was not a defendant.
Is Mr. Acri liable for injuries? Explain.
In this specific case Mr. Acri is liable for the injuries as there was a partnership between him and his wife. According to the uniform Partnership Act, both the partners are liable if any one of them does anything wrong hence we can confirm that Mr. Acri was liable for the specific act.
