Butler v. Mcdonald's Corporation, C.A. No. 98-439-L (D. R.I. 8/__/2000)

• Decision Date: 01 August 2000
• Docket Number: C.A. No. 98-439-L.
• Parties: JOHN D. BUTLER and CORLISS E. BUTLER as parents and legal guardians of their minor child BRYAN A. BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

Page 1

JOHN D. BUTLER and CORLISS E. BUTLER as parents and legal guardians of their minor child BRYAN A. BUTLER, Plaintiff, v.MCDONALD'S CORPORATIONDefendant.

C.A. No. 98-439-L.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

August __, 2000.

OPINION AND ORDER

RONALD R. LAGUEUX, District Judge.

John D. and Corliss E. Butler have brought this action on behalf of their minor child, Bryan A. Butler("plaintiff"), for injuries he sustained as the result of the alleged negligence of McDonald's Corporation("defendant"), its agents, servants, and/or employees in maintaining the premises of a franchised restaurant and in training and supervision of its agents, servants and/or employees.

The matter is now before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Because genuine issues of material fact exist, this Court denies defendant's motion for summary judgment.

I. Facts/Background

For eleven years defendant has leased a restaurant building and premises at 6595 Post Road, North Kingstown, Rhode Island ("franchise restaurant") to James Cooper("Cooper").Defendant also has a license franchise agreement that allows Cooper to operate the business under the McDonald's name according to a variety of requirements and conditions typically found in franchise arrangements.It is undisputed that the employees working at the franchise restaurant are not employees of defendant but rather are employees of Cooper.

On or about July 25, 1997plaintiff was a patron at the franchise restaurant.Plaintiff was in the company of other minors (young teens) who frequently visited this particular McDonald's restaurant and other "fast-food" establishments.Plaintiff and his companions were awaiting the arrival of Mr. Groves, father to one of the boys, for a ride back home.Plaintiff saw what he believed to be the Groves car in the parking lot and exited the south side door of the restaurant to inform Mr. Groves that the boys needed more time.After exiting plaintiff realized that he was mistaken — it was not the Groves car.Plaintiff turned to re-enter the restaurant.As plaintiff pushed against the door it shattered, resulting in injury to his right hand which has required two corrective surgeries and physical therapy.

Plaintiff, through his parents, filed this action on September 2, 1998 seeking damages.Plaintiff claims the injury was caused by the negligence of the franchise restaurant operator and/or his employees, but he seeks to hold defendant liable because of the nature of the relationship between defendant and the franchise restaurant.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges there was a "spider crack" in the glass portion of the door for a period of time exceeding two weeks, and that the franchise restaurant operator and/or his employees knew or should have known of this unsafe condition.As a result, plaintiff claims that the alleged unsafe condition should have been repaired, and that the failure to repair the alleged unsafe condition and the resultant structural weakness in the glass was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment on two grounds.The first basis for the motion is that the relationship between defendant and the franchise restaurant does not trigger liability on defendant's part.Specifically, defendant denies that it owed a duty of due care to plaintiff as a result of its landlord/tenant relationship with the franchise restaurant, and it denies that its franchisor/franchisee relationship causes it to be vicariously liable through an agency theory or the doctrine of apparent agency.Defendant's second claim is that the undisputed facts establish that any negligence on the part of defendant, the franchise restaurant operator and/or his employees, if any there be, cannot be the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury since plaintiff has proffered no expert witness testimony on that point.The Court has heard oral argument and considered the briefs filed by the parties and the motion for summary judgment is now in order for decision.

II.Summary Judgment Standard

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the standard for ruling on summary judgment motions:

The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Therefore, the critical inquiry is whether a genuine issue of material fact exists."Material facts are those `that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.'"Morrissey v. Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank, 54 F.3d 27, 31(1st Cir.1995)(quotingAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505(1986))."A dispute as to a material fact is genuine `if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'"Id.

On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view all evidence and related inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.SeeSpringfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 133 F.3d 103, 106(1st Cir.1997)."When the facts support plausible but conflicting inferences on a pivotal issue in the case, the judge may not choose between those inferences at the summary judgment stage."Coyne v. Taber Partners I, 53 F.3d 454, 460(1st Cir.1995).Similarly, "summary judgment is not appropriate merely because the facts offered by the moving party seem more plausible, or because the opponent is unlikely to prevail at trial."Gannon v. Narragansett Elec. Co., 777 F.Supp. 167, 169(D.R.I.1991).Summary judgment is only available when there is no dispute as to any material fact and only questions of law remain.SeeBlackie v Maine, 75 F.3d 716, 721(1st Cir.1996).Additionally, the moving party bears the burden of showing that no evidence supports the nonmoving party's position.SeeCelotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325(1986).

III.Discussion

Under Rhode Island law, to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must show that: (1)the defendant owed a duty of due care to the plaintiff; (2)the defendant breached that duty; (3)the defendant's negligent acts constitute both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and (4)the plaintiff has suffered actual damages.SeeVolpe Fleet Nat'l Bank, 710 A.2d 661, 663(R.I.1998);Russian v. Life-Cap Tire Servs., Inc., 608 A.2d 1145, 1147(R.I.1992);Dunning v. Kerzner, 910 F.2d 1009, 1013(1st Cir.1990)(applying Rhode Island law).

Through the doctrine of respondeat superior, a party can be held vicariously liable for the torts of another.Vicarious liability often arises from a employer-employee relationship or a principal-agent relationship.SeeVargas Mfg. Co. v. Friedman, 661 A.2d 48, 53(R.I.1995);Reccko v. Criss Cadillac Co., 610 A.2d 542, 544(R.I.1992).("It is well settled that a corporation is liable in compensatory damages for the tortious conduct committed by its agents while acting within the scope of their authority").SeealsoRestatement (Second) Agency§ 214, cmt. a (1958).Plaintiff does not allege the existence of an employer-employee relationship.The issue presented by this motion then, with regard to vicarious liability, is whether defendant can be made liable by application of an agency theory or the doctrine of apparent agency.

A.Landlord's Duty of Care

The duty of care element of negligence "is an obligation imposed by the law upon a person.It requires that person to conform his or her actions to a particular standard."Kuzniar v. Keach, 709 A.2d 1050, 1055(R.I.1998).

It is a well-settled rule in the State of Rhode Island that a landlord is not liable for injuries sustained by the guest of a tenant on the tenant's premises, unless the injury results from violation of a duty of maintenance and repair of common passageways with respect to a residential lease, or from the landlord's breach of a covenant to repair in the lease, or from a latent defect known to the landlord but not known to the tenant or guest, or because the landlord has assumed the duty to repair.SeeCoppotelli v. Brewer Yacht Yard at Cowesett, Inc., 636 A.2d 1326, 1327(R.I.1994);Izen v. Winoker, 589 A.2d 824, 828(R.I.1991);Ward v. Watson, 524 A.2d 1108, 1109(R.I.1987);Corcione v Ruggieri, 139 A.2d 388, 391(R.I.1958);Whitehead v Comstock & Co., 56 A. 446, 447(R.I.1903).

None of the above doctrines apply to this case.The lease in question is commercial.It contains no covenant for defendant to repair or maintain the premises.Plaintiff does not claim that the injury resulted from a latent defect known to defendant and not to the franchise restaurant operator.Finally, plaintiff does not claim that defendant, as landlord, assumed a duty to repair the premises.Indeed, the lease contains precise language that the tenant, the franchise restaurant operator, has the duty to maintain and repair the premises.Therefore, as landlord, defendant did not owe a duty of due care to plaintiff in this case.

B.Vicarious Liability

1.Agency

Agency is "'the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.'"Toledo v. Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 44, 52(D.R.I.2000)(citingLawrence v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 523 A.2d 864, 867(R.I.1987)(quotingRestatement (Second) Agency§ 1(1)(1958))).The Rhode Island Supreme Court has outlined three elements that must be shown in order for an agency relationship to exist: (1) the principal must manifest that the agent will act for him, (2) the agent must accept the undertaking, and (3)the parties must agree that the principal...