Bartholomew v. Burger King Corp.
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
15 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (2014)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Burger King Corporation (BK) (defendant) franchised a fast-food restaurant to Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) (defendant). No BK employees worked at the restaurant. The franchise agreement between BK and AAFES expressly disclaimed the existence of an agency relationship between BK and AAFES and provided that BK had no control over the terms and conditions of employment of AAFES’s employees. However, the franchise agreement gave BK the right to enter and inspect the restaurant. The franchise agreement also required AAFES to strictly comply with BK’s food-handling and preparation procedures as well as quality-assurance standards. BK’s franchise manual also set forth what products, supplies, and equipment were to be used by AAFES. AAFES was required under the franchise agreement to post a sign notifying the public that AAFES independently owned and operated the restaurant, but it was unclear whether AAFES actually did so. BK’s brand logo was prominently displayed throughout the restaurant. Clark Bartholomew (plaintiff) was injured after eating a sandwich prepared at the fast-food restaurant that contained metal objects. It was unclear how the metal objects got into the sandwich. Bartholomew sued both BK and AAFES for negligence. BK motioned for summary judgment, arguing that BK was not responsible for the injuries because BK did not have sufficient control over the operations of the restaurant.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Seabright, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.