In order to determine whether or not the rule that declares franchisors immunity to the torts of a franchisee is fair, one must first understand the aspects regarding the terms. A franchisor is one that begins a franchise, and signs franchisees on to expand the business in different locations. One can almost look at a franchisee as an independent contractor, in which they are separate entities from the original franchisor. It is important to know that once a franchisor and franchisee make an agreement to do business, that each are only responsible for their own contracts. This means that the franchisor is not liable for the franchisees contract, and in turn the franchisee is not liable for the contracts of the franchisor.

The rule that states that franchisors are not liable for the torts of a franchisee is fair in my opinion. Once the contract is signed, although the franchisor is providing the franchisee with the knowledge and trade secrets to succeed; at the end of the day that particular franchise location is the responsibility of the franchisee. For example, if Subway were to sign a new franchisee, and that franchisee was negligent in cleaning up a spill in their location causing a customer to slip; the franchisee is responsible for any damages the customer incurs. The customer cannot sue the franchisor (Subway), but they can sue that particular franchisee location.

How would you challenge this?