Issue: Whether a defendant may be found liable under an apparent Agency Doctrine?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | An apparent agency doctrine; Vicarious liability |
| Jurisdiction: | Virgin Islands |
| Cited Cases: | 844 F.2d 156; 150 Or.App. 274; 501 F. Supp. 29 |
| Cited Statutes: | Restatement (Second) of Agency § 27 (1958) |
| Date: | 04/01/2006 |
An agency relationship may be deemed to exist for purposes of vicarious liability if the alleged principal causes a third person to believe that someone is his agent, thereby rendering the principal liable for losses associated with the third party’s reasonable reliance on the care and skill of the presumed agent. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 27 (1958).
In Miller v. McDonald’s Corp., 150 Or.App. 274, 945 P.2d 1107 (Or.App.1997), at 1110-11, the plaintiff who bit into a sapphire stone in her Big Mac assumed the restaurant was owned, controlled and managed by McDonald’s. The court found sufficient evidence to raise a jury issue on both actual agency and apparent agency theories, because the injury bore a direct relationship to how McDonald’s instructed its franchisee to prepare food and because McDonald’s regularly inspected the restaurant to ensure compliance with its product standards. The franchisor’s vicarious liability resulted, not from a general right of control, but because “there is evidence that [McDonald’s] had the right to control [its franchisee] in the precise part of its business that allegedly resulted in plaintiff’s injuries.” Id. at 1111. The court focused on whether the defendant acted in manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the operator or the employees of the franchise were employees or agents of the defendant franchisor. Examples of behavior that could lead a reasonable person to believe that a franchise operation was an agent of the franchisor, included items that would maintain […]