Case Name: Bosse vs. Brinker Restaurant Corp d/b/a Chili's Bar and Grill Which court is making...

Transcribed Image Text:

Case Name: Bosse vs. Brinker Restaurant Corp d/b/a Chili's Bar and Grill Which court is making this decision? The Massachusetts superior court/ the appellate court Who is the Plaintiff? Bosse Who did what to whom? Who is the Defendant? Brinker restaurant corp Bosse was part of a group who dined and dashed. A regular patron followed them, whose car was unmarked, he had no Chili's uniform or any other insignia of employment at Chili's. In this car chase, they crash and Bosse suffers injuries generating the lawsuit against Chili's. What relief (claim) was sought by the plaintiff in the lower court? Bosse sued for damages and personal injuries related to the crash. What was the lower court's decision? And, if applicable, the Court of Appeals' decision? The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment. The court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of whether Chili's authorized the patron to act as a pose to conduct a chase. Who prevailed in the lower court(s)? Bosse, for suffering injuries, which lead to him suing upon the theory of respondeat superior. What is the specific legal question, based on what facts, is this court being asked to address? Do the undisputed material facts permit a genuine issue, whether Chili's consented to, controlled, and benefitted from the pursuit of the deadbeat teenagers by the zealous patron? What law(s) and specifically, which legal element(s) is (are) at issue? Agency relationship, which requires three elements. In this case, they were consent, the right of control, and agent conduct that benefits the principal somehow. What is the court's reason (interpretation) for the application of, change in, or exception to the law? The court considered whether the parties' conduct created an agency relationship. What had to be proven by the plaintiff and was the burden met? He had to prove reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of his claim. These elements were not met. What had to be proven by Defendant and was the burden met? He had to prove that no genuine issue of fact existed regarding the lack of an agency relationship through express acts or implication. The burden was met. What did the court decide on the legal question? The evidence seems to have failed to materialize upon all three of the elements. Consequently, the plaintiffs enjoy n reasonable expectation of proving an agency relationship. What is this court's order? Full summary judgment. Will the plaintiff's claim in the lower court be: granted, allowed to proceed, or denied? Denied! Evidence appears to have failed to materialize upon all three of the elements. Who prevailed in this court? Brinker prevailed in this court. Case Name: Bosse vs. Brinker Restaurant Corp d/b/a Chili's Bar and Grill Which court is making this decision? The Massachusetts superior court/ the appellate court Who is the Plaintiff? Bosse Who did what to whom? Who is the Defendant? Brinker restaurant corp Bosse was part of a group who dined and dashed. A regular patron followed them, whose car was unmarked, he had no Chili's uniform or any other insignia of employment at Chili's. In this car chase, they crash and Bosse suffers injuries generating the lawsuit against Chili's. What relief (claim) was sought by the plaintiff in the lower court? Bosse sued for damages and personal injuries related to the crash. What was the lower court's decision? And, if applicable, the Court of Appeals' decision? The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment. The court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of whether Chili's authorized the patron to act as a pose to conduct a chase. Who prevailed in the lower court(s)? Bosse, for suffering injuries, which lead to him suing upon the theory of respondeat superior. What is the specific legal question, based on what facts, is this court being asked to address? Do the undisputed material facts permit a genuine issue, whether Chili's consented to, controlled, and benefitted from the pursuit of the deadbeat teenagers by the zealous patron? What law(s) and specifically, which legal element(s) is (are) at issue? Agency relationship, which requires three elements. In this case, they were consent, the right of control, and agent conduct that benefits the principal somehow. What is the court's reason (interpretation) for the application of, change in, or exception to the law? The court considered whether the parties' conduct created an agency relationship. What had to be proven by the plaintiff and was the burden met? He had to prove reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of his claim. These elements were not met. What had to be proven by Defendant and was the burden met? He had to prove that no genuine issue of fact existed regarding the lack of an agency relationship through express acts or implication. The burden was met. What did the court decide on the legal question? The evidence seems to have failed to materialize upon all three of the elements. Consequently, the plaintiffs enjoy n reasonable expectation of proving an agency relationship. What is this court's order? Full summary judgment. Will the plaintiff's claim in the lower court be: granted, allowed to proceed, or denied? Denied! Evidence appears to have failed to materialize upon all three of the elements. Who prevailed in this court? Brinker prevailed in this court.