Holding: Although plaintiff alleges that the defendant-bar’s restroom attendant was involved in a peeping incident, she did not identify the restroom attendant, and the bar denied that it employed a restroom attendant. With nothing more than the purported restroom attendant’s own statement to plaintiff that he worked for the bar, plaintiff failed to prove that he was the bar’s agent.
We affirm the trial court’s grant of a directed verdict for the bar.
At trial, plaintiff conceded that she had “no way to definitively say that this person worked for or was an agent for [the bar] Draught other than what he allegedly told [her.]” Yet, before the alleged attendant’s statements could be admitted against Draught as proof of agency, plaintiff was first required to prove the apparent authority by other evidence.
Plaintiff failed to prove that the alleged bathroom attendant was an agent or employee of Draught. Since all of plaintiff’s claims were predicated on theories of agency or employment, the trial court did not err by granting Draught’s motion for directed verdict and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
Keena v. Cedar Street Investments, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-019-18, 10 pp.) (Ann Marie Calabria, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County Superior Court (Adam Conrad, J.) Daniel Flint for plaintiff; Melissa Monroe and Jeffrey Bolster for defendants. N.C. App. Unpub.