O'BANNER v. McDonald's Corp.
173 Ill. 2d 208, 670 N.E.2d 632, 218 Ill. Dec. 910 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To hold a franchisor vicariously liable for the negligence of its franchisee under the doctrine of apparent agency, the plaintiff must prove they justifiably relied on the franchisor's representations, meaning the plaintiff's decision to patronize the franchisee was motivated by a belief that they were dealing with the franchisor.
Facts:
- Reginald O’Banner entered a restaurant operating under the McDonald's name.
- While inside, O'Banner went to use the restroom.
- O'Banner slipped and fell in the restroom, sustaining personal injuries.
- The specific restaurant where the incident occurred was owned and operated by a franchisee, not by McDonald's Corporation itself.
Procedural Posture:
- Reginald O’Banner filed a personal injury lawsuit against McDonald’s Corporation and 'unknown owners' in the circuit court of Cook County (a trial court).
- McDonald’s Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not own, operate, or control the restaurant.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of McDonald's Corporation.
- O'Banner, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding apparent agency.
- McDonald's Corporation, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff state a valid claim for vicarious liability against a franchisor under the doctrine of apparent agency without providing any evidence that they relied on the franchisor's representations when deciding to patronize the franchisee's establishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Harrison
No. To hold a franchisor vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee under a theory of apparent agency, the plaintiff must demonstrate justifiable reliance on the apparent agency, which requires showing that the plaintiff went to the franchisee's establishment because they believed they were dealing with the franchisor. The court found that the doctrine of apparent agency is based on principles of estoppel, where a principal creates the appearance of an agency relationship, and an innocent third party relies on that appearance to their detriment. The essential element of reliance was completely absent from the record. O'Banner's pleadings and affidavit only stated that he fell in a McDonald's restaurant but gave no indication as to why he chose to go there. Without any evidence that he patronized the restaurant because he was relying on McDonald's Corporation's reputation, his claim based on apparent agency cannot succeed.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Bilandic
Yes. A plaintiff can present a valid claim because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding reliance, which should be inferred from the circumstances and decided by a jury. The dissent argued that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and the record should be construed liberally in favor of O'Banner. McDonald's Corporation's comprehensive national advertising and strict control over its franchisees' operations create a uniform system designed to make the public believe all restaurants are operated by the corporation itself. From these facts, a jury could reasonably infer that O'Banner, as a business invitee, relied on the consistent and clean image projected by McDonald's Corporation when deciding to enter the restaurant. Therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the reliance element required to prove apparent agency in the franchisor-franchisee context. By rejecting the idea that reliance can be inferred solely from national branding and advertising, the court placed a higher evidentiary burden on plaintiffs. This ruling protects franchisors from being held automatically liable for the torts of their franchisees, reinforcing the legal distinction between the two entities. Future plaintiffs in similar cases must now present specific evidence showing they were personally induced to patronize a location because they trusted the franchisor's brand, making such claims more difficult to sustain.
Unlock the full brief for O'BANNER v. McDonald's Corp.