Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.6-21

Actual agency is the relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person

to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the

other to act.

Three elements are required to show the existence of an actual agency:

1. a manifestation by the principal that the agent would act for the principal;

2. an acceptance by the agent of this undertaking; and

3. an understanding between the parties that the principal will be in control of this

undertaking.

A factor you may consider in assessing the alleged agency relationship is the right of the

principal to direct and control the means and methods of the work performed by the agent. The

agent need not be a hired agent or employee on a salary or on a definite contract. You may

consider whether the agent has some material relationship to the principal’s business; whether

the agent is engaged in a distinct occupation; whether the principal supplies the instrumentalities,

the tools and the place of work to the agent,; and the method of paying the agent. Additional

facts might demonstrate that there was an abandonment or change of agency with regard to the

particular act giving rise to liability.

The agreement between the principal and agent may have been oral or written, express or

implied, and the law makes no distinction between oral or written, express or implied agreements

in these circumstances. It is the principal’s general right to control, and not the actual exercise of

specific control, that must be established. If you find that the principal had the right to control

the actions of the agent, you may find that the relation of principal and agent exists, even though

the principal did not actually exercise the right to control. The law also does not require proof

that the principal looks over the agent’s shoulder and directs the agent in how to do the work.

Agents may be vested with considerable discretion and independence in how they perform their

work for the principal’s benefit, yet still be deemed subject to the principal’s general right to

control. In other words, it is the principal’s right or power to control the agent that matters, not

necessarily whether the right was exercised by the principal.

The plaintiff must prove actual agency by a fair preponderance of the evidence. If you find that

<defendant A> was acting as an actual agent of <defendant B> on <date>, then <defendant B> is

liable for any negligent actions of <defendant A> which occurred on <date> under the doctrine

of actual agency.

If you do not find that <defendant A> was acting as an actual agent of <defendant B> on <date>,

then <defendant B> is not liable for the negligent actions of <defendant A> on the doctrine of

actual agency.