Butler v. McDonald's Corp.
2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12370, 2000 WL 1206579, 110 F. Supp. 2d 62 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A franchisor may be held vicariously liable for the negligence of its franchisee if the franchisor retains sufficient control over the franchisee's daily operations to establish an agency relationship. The existence of such control is a question of fact that may preclude summary judgment, even if the franchise agreement expressly disclaims an agency relationship.
Facts:
- McDonald's Corporation leased a restaurant building and premises in North Kingstown, Rhode Island to a franchisee, James Cooper.
- McDonald's and Cooper had a license franchise agreement that required Cooper to operate the restaurant according to McDonald's comprehensive system and standards.
- On July 25, 1997, Bryan A. Butler, a minor, was a patron at the McDonald's restaurant operated by Cooper.
- The glass portion of a door at the restaurant allegedly had a 'spider crack' for more than two weeks prior to the incident.
- Butler exited the restaurant and, upon attempting to re-enter, pushed on the cracked glass door.
- The door shattered, causing a severe injury to Butler's right hand that required multiple surgeries.
Procedural Posture:
- John D. and Corliss E. Butler, on behalf of their minor son Bryan A. Butler, filed a negligence lawsuit against McDonald’s Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
- McDonald's Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to the plaintiff and could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its franchisee.
- The parties submitted briefs and presented oral arguments on the motion to the court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a franchisor be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of its franchisee when the franchise agreement and operational requirements give the franchisor substantial control over the franchisee's methods of operation, thereby creating a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a principal-agent relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Lagueux
Yes. A franchisor may be held vicariously liable where the plaintiff presents sufficient evidence of the franchisor's right to control the franchisee's operations to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an agency relationship. The court first determined that McDonald's, as a commercial landlord, owed no direct duty of care to the plaintiff because the lease placed the duty to maintain and repair on the tenant, Cooper. However, the court then analyzed vicarious liability under an agency theory. The key element of agency is the principal's right to control the agent's work. While McDonald's franchise agreement explicitly disclaimed an agency relationship, the court held that such language is not determinative. The plaintiff provided evidence of McDonald's control, including operational and training manuals, a 'comprehensive' system, frequent inspections, and McDonald's right to terminate the agreement for a material breach. The court, finding the reasoning in Miller v. McDonald’s Corp. persuasive, concluded this evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find an agency relationship existed. Therefore, summary judgment for McDonald's was denied on the issue of actual agency. The court also provided guidance on apparent agency, stating that a plaintiff would need to prove that the franchisor's actions would lead a reasonable person to believe an agency existed, that the plaintiff actually held that belief, and that the plaintiff relied on it to their detriment.
Analysis:
This case significantly impacts franchisor liability by demonstrating that operational control intended to ensure brand uniformity can create a triable issue of fact regarding agency. It serves as a warning to franchisors that contractual disclaimers of agency are not sufficient to shield them from liability if their operational requirements are extensive. The decision empowers plaintiffs to look past the franchisee and hold the corporate franchisor accountable for negligence at the local level, thereby expanding potential avenues for recovery in tort law. This precedent encourages courts to look at the practical reality of the franchisor-franchisee relationship rather than just the formal terms of their agreement.
