The rule that franchisors are not liable for the torts of the franchisee is obviously there to protect the franchisor from any type of torts that come upon the specific business. From the perspective of the franchisee that is liable for their current dispute I can understand the want for the franchise to help. However, as the franchisor acts as the head of many franchises, they could face many forms of litigation in which they are not at fault. This would cost them more money and time if they were to be responsible for the torts of their franchisees. I also see this from the perspective of a fellow franchisee who may not agree and think that the other specific branch is at fault. If the entire Franchise is then held liable the other branches could suffer as well.

From a top down perspective it is best to distance the franchise from the torts of smaller businesses. If something happens on the franchisee's level it is their responsibility to handle that. Therefore, certain contracts even indicate that some franchisees operate as independent contractors, to protect the overall franchise. Now I also agree that there is a time in which the franchisor must face responsibility.

For example, In the case of Patterson V. Domino's Pizza where a young woman was sexually assaulted and sued the owner of her establishment and the franchise. Dominos tried to defend that the specific franchise operated as an independent contractor and thus was not responsible. The court ruled, "A franchisee may be found to be an agent of the franchisor even where the franchise agreement states it is an independent contractor, since it is "the right to control the means and manner" that determines whether a principal-agent relationship exists." (Kessler, McNicholas). To conclude I believe that the rule is fair, most of the time but case by case must be addressed.

How would you challenge this?