1. Was Roberts an actual agent of McDonald’s Corporation?

2. Did McDonald’s Corporation make objective manifestations leading Mr. Street to reasonably believe that his daughter worked for McDonald’s Corporation?

3. Speculate on why the Streets were so intent on suing the corporation when they had the clear right to sue the tortfeasor assistant manager and the franchisee Roberts.

William Roberts operated a McDonald’s restaurant in Newcastle, Washington, under a franchise agreement with McDonald’s Corporation. A thriving drug scene existed among employees and assistant managers at the restaurant. In May of 2000, 15-year-old D.L.S. was hired by the restaurant and within weeks she was part of the drug scene there. Thereafter, she left home to live with an assistant manager and use drugs. Her father, Clifford Street, and D.L.S. sued McDonald’s Corp. and Roberts for introducing D.L.S. to drugs and sex. After the trial court dismissed the claims against McDonald’s Corporation, D.L.S. and her father appealed. Mr. Street testified that “no person in their right mind would believe that McDonald’s did not control what happened at the individual restaurants.”

JUDICIAL OPINION

KENNEDY, J.… The only question before us is whether McDonald’s Corporation has liability as Roberts’ principal. The parties’ franchise agreement clearly provided that Roberts was not an agent of McDonald’s, and the evidence established no control over daily operations. Under these circumstances, McDonald’s has no liability as Roberts’ actual principal.

Rather, the issue is whether Roberts was McDonald’s ostensible agent. Apparent agency occurs, and vicarious liability for the principal follows, where a principal makes objective manifestations leading a third person to believe the wrongdoer is an agent of the principal. Restatement, (Second) of Agency § 267 (1957). The doctrine is intended to protect third parties who justifiably rely upon the belief that another is the agent of a principal.

D.L.S. appears to argue that her parents’ permission for her to work was given in reliance upon their belief that she would be working for McDonald’s Corporation. We thus turn to her father’s claims.

Apparent authority can be inferred only from acts of the principal which cause the third party to “actually, or subjectively, believe that the agent has authority to act for the principal.”

Mr. Street and D.L.S.’s stepmother testified that they gave permission for D.L.S. to work at the Newcastle McDonald’s in the belief that “a McDonald’s is a McDonald’s” and would offer a safe, wholesome environment for teenage workers. They contend this belief came from McDonald’s marketing and advertising. Mr. Street described McDonald’s ads portraying McDonald’s as a “very positive, safe environment with young children getting ‘Happy Meals’ and playing in McDonald’s play areas.” He also points to ads emphasizing McDonald’s support for the Olympics, successful young athletes, and the Ronald McDonald House. This marketing made McDonald’s appear to be a highly organized, wellrun corporation that values “good citizenship and youth,” in “a uniform, quality, wholesome environment.” He points out that McDonald’s advertising emphasizes “youth-related themes” and shows “smiling, happy, and friendly young people as their employees.” He testified that “[b]ased [on]

McDonald’s targeting of minors as employees, I believed that McDonald’s would take at least ordinary precautions in the hiring and supervising of its employees, especially the teenagers.” He declared that McDonald’s marketing of its wholesome image “deliberately misleads parents such as myself to think a McDonald’s restaurant is a good, safe working environment for our teenage children to try out their first jobs.” ……………………….