Allen, et al. v. Choice Hotels Int'l
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-00045-COA | |
| Oral Argument: | 08-22-2006 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-21-2006 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Wrongful death - Vicarious liability of franchisor Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-23-2004 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED. Case Number: A2401-98-00325 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | William D. Allen, Deceased, by and through Darlene W. Allen, His Widow, as His Personal Representative; and Darlene W. Allen, Individually |
MARK D. LUMPKIN, JENNIFER P. BURKES, JAMES R. REEVES |
||
| Appellee: | Choice Hotels International | JAMES E. WELCH, WILLIAM E. WHITFIELD |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Wrongful death - Vicarious liability of franchisor |
| Summary of the Facts: | Darlene Allen, individually, and as the wrongful death heir of her husband, William Allen, filed an action for his death and her injuries at a Gulfport Comfort Inn. The action was filed against R.C.P. Enterprises d/b/a Comfort Inn, the franchisee, and R.D. Patel, its managing partner, and against Choice Hotels International, the franchisor. The trial court entered summary judgment on behalf of Choice, finding that the franchisor was not vicariously liable because it did not control or have the right to control the day-to-day operation of the hotel. Darlene appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Factors used in determining whether a party is the master of another party include whether the principal master has the power to terminate the contract at will; whether he has the power to fix the price in payment for the work, or vitally controls the manner and time of payment; whether he furnishes the means and appliances for the work; whether he has control of the premises; whether he furnishes the materials upon which the work is done and receives the output thereof, the contractor dealing with no other person in respect to the output; whether he has the right to prescribe and furnish the details of the kind and character of work to be done; whether he has the right to supervise and inspect the work during the course of the employment; whether he has the right to direct the details of the manner in which the work is to be done; whether he has the right to employ and discharge the subemployees and to fix their compensation; and whether he is obliged to pay the wages of said employees. Choice did not act as a master to the Comfort Inn. Choice did not pay the hotel staff’s wages, Choice did not have the right to hire or terminate “subemployees” or fix their wages, and Choice had no right to direct the details of the operation of the Comfort Inn. While the Rules and Regulations contained many specific requirements, Choice did not have the right to tell Comfort Inn how to conduct its day-to-day business, such as what hours employees would work or what hours the hotel should be open. Furthermore, Choice did not have the right to tell the Comfort Inn what rate to rent its rooms at, nor could Choice terminate the franchise agreement at will. Other courts have held the franchisor vicariously liable only when it had the right to control the specific instrumentality or aspect of the business that was alleged to have caused the harm. This is consistent with Mississippi law, which has consistently refused to hold the employer of an independent contractor liable unless the employer was maintaining a right of control over the performance of that aspect of work which gave rise to the injury. The Allens were harmed by an alleged deficiency in the Comfort Inn’s security. The few requirements of Choice regarding hotel doors (a guest room entry door must be a minimum of two inches in width and have a 180-degree door viewer, a deadbolt lock is required on the door, and security bars must be placed on any sliding doors) do not show that Choice had the right to control both the means and the ends of security at the Comfort Inn. Mississippi cases have also found vicarious liability where a party holds itself out as offering services to the public and consumers are reasonably led to believe that they are doing business with that party. Choice required that R.C.P. Enterprises display, in a prominent location in the hotel’s lobby, a sign indicating that the Gulfport Comfort Inn was run by an independent party, and not by Choice. Therefore, Choice did not lead the public to believe that customers were doing business with Choice. Also, no evidence has been offered in this case to show that any security measures, or lack thereof, were a proximate cause of the Allens’ injuries. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate because no genuine issue of material fact as to causation has been created. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
