Law:
N.Y. judge finds franchisor cannot be held liable for franchisee’s alleged negligence A franchisor cannot be held liable for the alleged negligence of a franchisee merely because they have a relationship, a Suffolk County, N.Y., judge has ruled in dismissing a claim against 7-Eleven lodged by a customer splashed with hot coffee.
Supreme Court Justice Robert W. Doyle granted summary judgment dismissing a suit against the company by Eugene Nickola, who alleges he was injured during an altercation between another customer and an employee of a Greenport 7-Eleven.
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.
The judge permitted claims filed by Nickola against Farroq Baig, owner of the 7-Eleven franchise, and Mirzra Mahmud, the employee involved in the altercation, to proceed. Jury selection is scheduled to begin on Jan. 10.
No comments yet.