Little v. Howard Johnson Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a “franchise agreement [that] primarily insured the uniformity and standardization of products and services offered by a Howard Johnson restaurant” did not amount to “obligations” that “affect the control of daily operations”
• holding plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that she was harmed as a result of relying on the perceived fact that the franchisee was an agent of the franchisor
• upholding grant of summary disposition to franchisor resulting in no liability for injury to plaintiff on franchisee’s property, where franchisor did not control the “day-to-day operations” of the franchisee’s business
• no vicarious liability where franchisor had right of inspection but actual control was limited to holding franchisee in breach of agreement for failure to meet standards
• restaurant franchisor not vicariously liable for injuries of patron who slipped on ice at franchisee's restaurant, since \uniformity and standardization of products\ provisions in franchise agreement \do not affect the control of daily operations\
• Franchisor’s holding title ownership of the property without occupation or control of the land was not sufficient to deem the franchisor a possessor of the premises for the purpose of assessing direct liability to an invitee.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).