Hayman v. Ramada Inn, Inc.
86 N.C. App. 274, 357 S.E.2d 394, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 2712 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A franchisor is not vicariously liable for the negligence of its franchisee unless it retains or exercises detailed control over the franchisee's daily operations (actual agency) or the plaintiff demonstrates detrimental reliance on the franchisor's representations of authority (apparent agency).
Facts:
- Piedmont Airlines had a long-standing arrangement to house its flight attendant trainees at a motel operating under the name Ramada Inn in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
- Sandye Lee Hayman, a Piedmont trainee, was housed at this motel as part of her training program.
- The motel was actually owned and operated by a separate company, Turnpike Properties, Inc. (Turnpike), pursuant to a license agreement with the franchisor, Ramada Inn, Inc.
- The license agreement required Turnpike to adhere to certain brand standards but did not grant Ramada Inn, Inc. control over daily operations, personnel decisions, or security measures.
- On April 10, 1983, Hayman was assaulted on the motel premises.
- The motel was identified by signs and advertisements as "Ramada Inn."
- Hayman asserted that during her stay, she never saw any indication that an entity other than Ramada Inn, Inc. owned or operated the facility.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandye Lee Hayman filed a negligence lawsuit against Ramada Inn, Inc. in a North Carolina trial court.
- Ramada Inn, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not the proper defendant.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ramada Inn, Inc., dismissing the case.
- Hayman (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a franchisor vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of its franchisee in failing to provide adequate security when the franchise agreement does not grant the franchisor control over the daily operations, including security, of the franchisee's establishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Becton, Judge
No. A franchisor is not vicariously liable for a franchisee's negligence when it lacks control over the franchisee's daily operations and the plaintiff fails to show reliance necessary for apparent agency. The court found no evidence of an actual agency relationship because the license agreement between Ramada Inn, Inc. and Turnpike did not grant the franchisor the right to control the details of the motel's day-to-day operations, such as security. The court also rejected the claim of apparent agency (or agency by estoppel), reasoning that the plaintiff failed to establish two key elements: 1) there was no misrepresentation by the franchisor, as the license agreement required the franchisee to identify itself as the owner, and 2) the plaintiff failed to show she relied on any representation by Ramada Inn, Inc., as her employer, not she, chose the lodging.
Dissenting - Cozort, Judge
The dissent disagrees with granting summary judgment. The dissent argues that the majority prematurely concluded there was no liability because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding apparent agency. The plaintiff's affidavit, stating she never saw any sign indicating ownership by anyone other than Ramada Inn, creates a factual dispute as to whether the franchisee complied with the license agreement's disclosure requirement. Furthermore, the dissent contends that the plaintiff's affidavit raises an inference of reliance on the 'Ramada Inn' name, and this factual issue is not resolved, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of franchisor liability in North Carolina, establishing that the mere use of a brand name and adherence to broad quality standards are insufficient to create vicarious liability for a franchisee's torts. It reinforces the traditional agency law requirements of control for actual agency and representation plus reliance for apparent agency. This ruling protects franchisors from being held automatically liable for the security failures of their independent franchisees, placing a significant evidentiary burden on plaintiffs to prove either detailed operational control or their own specific, detrimental reliance on the franchisor's brand.
