Today we will review an interesting case concerning Franchisor tort liability. In this case study, the plaintiff filed an appeal of a summary judgment decision, which dismissed this negligence case against the Franchisor, Motel 6, located in New Orleans. The action arose from a shooting at the motel, which left the plaintiff, a guest, a paraplegic. The plaintiff was in the Motel 6 parking lot when he was shot by an armed robber.
NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST FRANCHISOR DISMISSED
In this case, the plaintiff filed suit against the national Motel 6 franchise, as well as the franchisee, alleging that the motel was liable because a broken gate enabled the armed robber access to the parking lot.
FRANCHISOR OWED NO DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF
In response, the Franchisor, filed a motion for summary judgment contending that it owed no duty to the plaintiff, as Motel 6 did not control day-to-day operations of the Franchisee. After hearing the case, the trial court agreed with the case put forth by the Franchise Attorney and found that no genuine issues of material fact existed as to the lack of duty, and as a result granted the motion for summary judgment. The court further found that no genuine issues of material fact existed because the Franchisor did not owe any duty to the plaintiff pursuant to the doctrines of direct negligence, actual authority, or apparent authority. The appellate court then affirmed the dismissal defended by the Franchise Attorney hired by Motel 6, confirming that the Franchisor owed no duty to the Plantiff. Citation: 2015 La. App. LEXIS 1366 | 2014-1276 (La.App. 4 Cir. 07/08/15); BE ADVISED that these comments are not intended as legal opinions and are not to be relied upon as legal advice. If you need legal advice, or a referral to a business consultant, please contact us to discuss the specifics of your franchise business.
© KilcommonsLaw, P.C. 2015the employees