PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 335. pals or masters. 1 The liability of principals or masters for the torts of their agents or servants does not rest in every ~ o J corpora- respect on the rules which constitute the basis of the tj°ns liable responsibility of principals for the contracts of their principals, agents. The liability of a principal for the contract the^rinc?- of his agent depends altogether on whether the con- ^ t s y ha " tract was within the scope of the agent's actual authority, or of such authority as the other contracting party acting as a careful and honest man was justified in inferring to exist from the course and general scope of the agent's employ- ment. But in regard to the principal's liability on the contract of his agent, the course and scope of the agent's employment are material only in determining whether the other contracting party was justified in relying on the agent's assumed authority. On the other hand, in regard to the principal's liability for the torts of his agent or servant, the course and scope of the employment become material in themselves apart from their materiality as evidence of implied authority: for a principal may be liable for torts of his employe, committed in the course of the latter's employment, which the injured person could never have imagined that the principal had authorized. Thus, in Craker v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co., 2 a rail- road company was held liable to pay damages to a young lady passenger whom the conductor kissed ; a tort which she was not justified in supposing to have been committed pursuant to instructions from the company. It might, indeed, be suggested that kissing passengers was not properly within the scope of the conductor's employment ; but it is within the scope of his employment and duty to protect them from insult ; and if he violates this duty by insulting them himself, the company will be responsible. For a railroad company is responsible to pas- sengers even for the wilful and malicious acts of its conductors 1 Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202, 209 ; Fishkill Savings Ins' a v. National Bank, 80 N. Y. 162 ; Denver and R. G. Ry. v. Harris, 122 U. S. 597 ; Angell and Ames on Corp., § 310. See Ramsden v. Boston and Albany R. Co., 104 Mass. 117 ; Brokaw ». N. J. R. Co., 32 N. J. L. 328 ; South and North Alabama R. R. Co. v. Chappell, 61 Ala. 527 ; Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 645 ; Salt Lake City v. Hollister, 118 U. S. 256 ; Ranger o. Great Western R'y Co., 5 H. L. C. 72, 86 ; State ex inf. Crow v. Fire- men's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1. 2 36 Wis. 657. 311
