Each student is required to prepare a typed paper, using the Final Case Analysis form, based on an individually assigned case. The paper is limited to a maximum of 3 double spaced pages. This is an individual or two person group project. In evaluating the paper, will focus on the following components:

JONES V GDI, INC MDI, a Giant Burgers franchisee, hired Jim Post to work at its Giant Burgers restaurant. At the time, Post was a work-release inmate at the County Jail. In the mid-afternoon of June 11, Post walked off the job without permission. He then crossed the street to the supermarket parking lot, where he lay in wait for Rose Jones, his former girlfriend, and Ken Hollis, her fianc, both employees of the supermarket. When Jones and Hollis emerged from the building, Post shot them both in the head. He then shot himself. Post and Hollis died of their injuries. Jones survived but sustained serious injuries and is permanently disabled. Jones sued MDI and Giant Burgers, Inc. As is pertinent to this appeal, the plaintiffs alleged that Giant Burgers is vicariously liable, as MDI's franchisor, for MDI's negligent supervision of Post. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Giant Burgers, concluding that there was no basis for vicarious liability. The plaintiff appeals. Vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior depends upon the existence of a master/servant agency relationship. Vicarious liability under respondeat superior is a form of liability without fault: the imposition of liability on an innocent party for the tortious conduct of another based upon the existence of a particularized agency relationship. As such, it is an exception to our fault-based liability system and is imposed only where the principal has control or the right to control the physical conduct of the agent such that a master/servant relationship can be said to exist. A franchise is a business format typically characterized by the franchisee's operation of an independent business pursuant to a license to use the franchisor's trademark or trade name. A franchise is ordinarily operated in accordance with a detailed franchise or license agreement designed to protect the integrity of the trademark by setting uniform quality, marketing, and operational standards applicable to the franchise.

The rationale for vicarious liability becomes somewhat attenuated when applied to the franchise relationship, and vicarious liability premised upon the existence of a master/servant relationship is conceptually difficult to adapt to the franchising context. If the operational standards included in the typical franchise agreement for the protection of the franchisor's trademark were broadly construed as capable of meeting the "control or right to control" test that is generally used to determine respondeat superior liability, then franchisors would almost always be exposed to vicarious liability for the torts of their franchisees. We see no justification for such a broad rule of franchisor vicarious liability. If vicarious liability is to be imposed against franchisors, a more precisely focused test is required. We conclude that the marketing, quality, and operational standards commonly found in franchise agreements are insufficient to establish the close supervisory control or right of control necessary to demonstrate the existence of a master/servant relationship for all purposes or as a general matter. We hold, therefore, that a franchisor may be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its franchisee only if the franchisor has control or a right of control over the daily operation of the specific aspect of the franchisee's business that is alleged to have caused the harm. In the case of the franchise agreement between MDI and Giant Burgers, Article 6 of the license agreement addresses the issue of personnel. As to management personnel, the agreement requires a designated officer or shareholder of the licensee to attend a Giant Burgers management training seminar. As to personnel generally, the agreement provides: "LICENSEE shall hire, train, maintain and properly supervise sufficient, qualified and courteous personnel for the efficient operations of the Licensed Business." Here, although the license agreement between Giant Burgers and MDI imposed many quality and operational standards on the franchise, Giant Burgers did not have control or the right to control MDI's supervision of its employees. Summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' vicarious liability claims against Giant Burgers was properly granted. We affirm.

1. The name of the case

2. A statement of the key facts, including the legal basis of the case (EG: breach of contract).

3. Report on the status of the legal process: stage of litigation: what was the trial and/or lower court ruling and what is being appealed to what court level.

4. The legal question/issue the court need to address

5. An evaluation of the competing interests in this matter: what are the key arguments on each side.

6. The legal rule the court is adopting that is now the precedent

7. The stated reasoning/logic of the court in applying the rule to these facts

8. The decision of the case: eg: affirmed, reversed, reversed and remanded and in whose favor.

9. A brief explanation of the impact or likely relevance for business

10. A brief evaluation of or comment on the decision by the student(s)