Brendan Bosse and Michael Griffin were a part of a group of four teenagers eating a meal at a Chili's restaurant in Dedham, Massachusetts. Chili's is owned by Brinker Restaurant Corporation (collectively, "Chili's"). The cost of the meal was $56. The teenagers decided not to pay. They went out of the building, got in their car, and drove away, heading north up Route 1.

A patron of the restaurant saw the teenagers leave without payment. He followed them in his white sport-utility vehicle. The teenagers saw him following them. A high-speed chase ensued through Dedham side streets. The patron used his cell phone to call the Chili's manager. The manager called 911 and reported the incident and the location of the car chase. The teenagers' car collided with a cement wall, and Bosse and Griffin were seriously injured. The Chili's patron drove past the crash scene and was never identified.

Bosse and Griffin sued Chili's for compensatory damages for their injuries. The plaintiffs argued that the patron was an agent of Chili's and therefore that Chili's was liable to the plaintiffs based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds a principal liable for the acts of its agents. Chili's filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the patron was not its agent.

Do you agree with the court's ruling in this cases? Why or why not? Why do you think the plaintiffs sued Chili's ? Do you think they had a very good chance of winning the lawsuit against Chili's? Is the restaurant patron who instituted the chase liable? Why or why not?