Murphy v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

Murphy (plaintiff) sued Holiday Inns (defendant) after slipping on a wet floor at a hotel operated by franchisee Betsy-Lin under a franchise agreement requiring Betsy-Lin to use Holiday's trade name, furnishings, and advertising system, pay license fees, build to Holiday's specifications, avoid competing hotel businesses, submit quarterly reports, and allow periodic inspections — while the agreement also expressly disclaimed any agency relationship. Betsy-Lin, not Holiday, owned the hotel and retained authority over its expenditures, rates, profits, and employees; Holiday denied liability, arguing no principal-agent relationship existed, and the trial court granted Holiday summary judgment.