Burzmali wrote:I can't imagine that too many juries will buy that, despite Manna-tech telling their sales force not to make the claims, they were encouraging them to make the claims.
OK, we disagree. I find juries typically quite ready to disbelieve the boss who blames the little guys while playing Sgt. Schultz, especially when what the little guys are doing benefits the boss. Plenty of jurors feel that, at one point or another, they themselves were in the position of the "little guys".
As for the cases I cited: they do in fact stand for the proposition that someone in a position to control the activities of others, and who knows about them but does nothing, can be found to have approved of them. You're right, of course, that the context of those cases is in finding (or, in the case of Palmer
, not finding) "state action" - they're just cases I'm familiar with - but the principle is the same. If a party with control countenances violations of law, it can be found responsible for them. If you want non-state-action cases, see Petillo v. State Liquor Authority
, 248 A.D.2d 541, 670 N.Y.S.2d 209 (2nd Dept. 1998) (drug sales in liquor store) or Saphir Intern., SA v. UBS PaineWebber Inc.
, 25 A.D.3d 315, 807 N.Y.S.2d 58 (1st Dept. 2006) (issue of plaintiff's
knowledge of defendant's employee's pump-and-dump).