 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Commonwealth v Koczwara
S. Ct Penn. 1959
Author:- Sam Biers
Relevant Facts: The bartender sold liquor to minors. The owner of the bar was not present, and testimony was given to support df had no knowledge of the acts claimed. The owner had previously been found guilty of a similar violation.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the sale of liquor to minors by a bartender, without the df’s presence, supports a finding of a violation of the liquor code?
Court’s Holding: No
Procedure: Conviction for violation of liquor code in Penn. 3 mos and $500 fine. Affirmed as to the fine, vacating the jail term.
Law or Rule(s): An employer if he consents to, approves, or participates in unlawful acts is criminally liable for those acts committed by the employees.
Court Rationale: The legislature, consistent with due process, can establish absolute criminal liability. The law is clear in this case, that the owner is subject to vicarious liability for illegal acts committed by his servants, “it shall be unlawful for any person, by himself, or by an employee or agent, . . . directly or indirectly.”The intent of the legislature was to eliminate the common law requirement of a mens rea, and place a high degree of responsibility upon the holder of a liquor license. However, it would be unthinkable to impose vicarious liability over onto true crimes, and by sentencing the df to 3 mos, that would make the offense a true crime. Even a meticulous employer cannot supervise every single act of his employees.
Minority - if a man sells to a minor, not knowing he is a minor then he is liable. When one man sells to a minor, unbeknownst to the master, the employer should not be liable vicariously for that act.