This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Commercial Law

Jul. 30, 2014

Franchisor liability: It's all about control

Last month, the state Supreme Court heard a case to decide whether a franchisor will be liable for acts of franchisee-employees, and will likely shape the future of franchising in California. By Paul J. Marron and David A. Lancaster


By Paul J. Marron and David A. Lancaster


On June 4, the state Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Patterson v. Domino's Pizza LLC, S204543. The court will soon decide whether a franchisor will be liable for acts of franchisee-employees, and likely shape the future of franchising in California.


By default, franchisees are considered independent contractors. Franchisees' employees are not employees of the franchisor; they are s...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up