7-Eleven argued in court that there is no evidence of negligence on its part and that the existence of a franchisee/franchisor relationship is insufficient to impose vicarious liability on 7-Eleven for the acts of an individual employed by an independent franchisee.
In Nickola v. 7-Eleven, 03-13494, Doyle explained that in determining whether a franchisor may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, the most important factor to consider is the degree of control the franchisor maintains over the daily operations of the franchisee.
Here, the judge found, 7-Eleven exercised no control over the activities that led to Nickola’s injury. “Thus, in the absence of a principal/agent relationship, or proof that the franchisor exercised a high degree of control over the franchisee, there is no basis for holding the franchisor responsible for the franchisee’s misconduct,” Doyle said.
Similar Posts:
- Franchisors vicariously liable for their franchisees?
- Lost the Game of Chicken
- Quiznos Franchisee Grumblings
- Franchisor Liable for Shooting in Franchisee’s Parking Lot
- 7-Eleven Gets #1 Rank from USA Today
Ryan is an attorney and valuation specialist residing in Chicago. He chronicles his thoughts and research on FranchisePundit.com. You may reach him by email ryanknoll@gmail.com or mobile telephone 312-715-8115.
I can imagine pissed off franchisees who are going bankrupt anyways to “create” an expensive negligence law suits to get back at the franchisor!
the ‘control’ comes in when the franchisor requires certain activities and behaviors, does it not?