The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P brought an action against D to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell in the bathroom of a D's restaurant. In his complaint, P named as defendants McDonald's Corporation (D) and certain 'unknown owners.' D promptly moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the restaurant was actually owned by one of its franchisees and that it neither owned, operated, maintained, nor controlled the facility. The motion was granted. The court of appeals reversed. This appeal resulted. P contends that even though D was a franchisor, it could nevertheless be held liable for the franchisee's negligence under principles of respondeat superior because there was sufficient evidence in the record to establish that the franchisee served as D's actual agent. In the alternative, P contends that D could be vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the franchisee based on the doctrine of apparent agency.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.