Factual Summary

Multiple guests suffered severe injuries by a fire started by an arsonist while they were staying at a Comfort Inn hotel. The Plaintiffs brought suit for personal injuries and wrongful deaths against Choice Hotels (Choice), the franchisor, and against Comfort Inn, the franchisee.

Question for the Court

The question for the court was whether the franchise agreement between Choice Hotels, the franchisor, and Comfort Inn, the franchisee, was such that it gave Choice a right to control the day-to-day operations of the Comfort Inn. If Choice was held to have a right to control over Comfort Inn's operations, then it could be held vicariously liable for injuries suffered by patrons and guests due to Comfort Inn's negligence. If Choice had no right to control, then liability for Comfort Inn's negligence would not be appropriate. The Plaintiffs claimed that Choice had been negligent for failing to provide proper security and fire protection for the Comfort Inn, and Choice had the right to control the daily operations of the Comfort Inn because the franchise agreement gave Choice a right to enforce trademark standards designed to maintain uniform appearance and service throughout the Choice Hotel chain.

Describe how the plaintiff and defendant might be able to support the arguments of both. What would each party need to prove in order to win/defend their interests in this case?

1. Plaintiff (Allen, the injured party)

2. Defendant (Choice Hotels, the franchisor)