Miller v. McDonald's Corp. (1997)

But see Miller v. McDonald's Corp., 150 Or.

But see Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or.

We therefore apply that test to this case.” Miller, 150 Or App at 279 (emphasis in original).

However, in Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or.App. 274 , 945 P.2d 1107, 1111 (1997), the Court, in examining the existence vel non of an agency relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee, reached the opposite conclusion.

Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 945 P.2d 1107, 1110-11 (Ct.App.Or. 1997); Billops v. Magness Construction Co., 391 A.2d 196, 197-98 (Supreme Ct. Del. 1978); Gizzi v. Texaco, Inc., 437 F.2d 308 (3rd Cir. 1970).

See Miller v. McDonald's Corp., 150 Or.App. 274 , 282 n. 4, 945 P.2d 1107 (1997) ("Apparent agency is a distinct concept from apparent authority.

See Dubois v. Kepchar, 889 F.Supp. 1095, 1102-03 (N.D.Ind.1995) (affirming grant of summary judgment to Century 21 franchisor noting that the franchisee ran his operation with “a free hand”); Bahadirli v. Domino’s Pizza, 873 F.Supp. 1528, 1537 (M.D.Ala.1995) (granting summary judgment in Title VII action in favor of franchisor because there was no evidence that franchisor had the right to control day-today activities of employees); Hayman v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 86 N.C.App. 274…

See Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or.App. 274 , 945 P.2d 1107, 1110 (1997) (“The relationship between two business entities is not precisely an employment relationship, but ... most if not all other courts that have considered the issue ... [apply] the right to control test for vicarious liability in that context as well.”); Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, Inc., 2004 WT 86, ¶ 31, 273 Wis.2d 106 , 682 N.W.2d 328, 337 (“Most courts that have addressed the issue of franchisor vicar…

App. 2009) (quoting Miller v. McDonald's Corp., 150 Or.

Everything about the appearance and operation of the Tigard McDonald’s identified it with defendant and with the common image for all McDonald’s restaurants that defendant has worked to create through national advertising, common signs and uniforms, common menus, common appearance, and common standards.” Id. at 1113.

But see Butler v. McDonald’s Corp., 110 F.Sup.2d 62, 67-68 (D.R.I. 2000) (court held franchisor vicariously liable for franchisee’s negligent failure to repair the premises because of indicia of general control); Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 945 P.2d 1107, 1111 (Or.Ct.App. 1997) (court held franchisor could be vicariously liable where franchisee’s patron bit into a Big Mac sandwich that contained a sapphire stone because the franchise agreement provided “precise methods” of f…

See Miller v. McDonald's Corp., 150 Or.App. 274 , 945 P.2d 1107, 1111-12 (1997) (stating that apparent agency is created where the defendant "represents that another is his servant or other agent"). 44 Yet the majority holds that the Spouses may avoid summary judgment because "[a]lthough Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot prove that any representations were made under such circumstances, we do not, as a matter of law, hold that Plaintiffs cannot so prove." This, of cour…

See Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or.App. 274 , 945 P.2d 1107, 1111-12 (1997) (stating that apparent agency is created where the defendant “represents that another is his servant or other agent”).

See also Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or.App. 274 , 945 P.2d 1107, 1110 (1997) (stating that to be liable a franchisor must have the right to control the method that the franchisee uses in carrying out the franchisee’s obligations).

See Miller, 150 Or App at 281 (holding that franchisor could be held vicariously liable for the negligent food handling and preparation of the franchisee’s employees because the franchisor established the methods for food handling and preparation and enforced the use of those particular meth- ods through regular inspections and the right to cancel the 584 JH Kelly, LLC v. Quality Plus Services, Inc. agreement).

See id. at 282-83 .