Kennedy v. Western Sizzlin Corp.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama held that a franchise agreement and related operational oversight did not establish an actual or apparent agency relationship between Western Sizzlin Corporation and its franchisee or the franchisee's manager. The court affirmed summary judgments on claims based on vicarious liability and negligent or wanton hiring, training, supervision, and retention. It reversed and remanded the summary judgments on direct-negligence claims in two cases because Western Sizzlin had not properly shifted the summary-judgment burden, while affirming the judgment in the third case.

Holdings

1. No agency relationship existed because the plaintiffs failed to present substantial evidence that Western Sizzlin controlled the manner of the Monroeville restaurant's day-to-day operations; the franchise agreement, inspections, and training showed compliance oversight rather than the retained right to control performance.
2. No apparent authority was shown because the plaintiffs presented no evidence that Western Sizzlin held Lambert out as its agent or permitted him to represent that he was its agent.
3. Western Sizzlin did not meet its initial summary-judgment burden because its motions and supporting briefs did not address the direct-negligence claims. Consequently, the burden never shifted to Kennedy and Pate, and summary judgment on those claims was improper.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an actual agency relationship existed between Western Sizzlin and its franchisee or the franchisee's manager so that Western Sizzlin could be held vicariously liable for Lambert's conduct and liable for negligent or wanton hiring, training, supervision, or retention.
2. Whether Lambert acted with Western Sizzlin's apparent authority.
3. Whether Western Sizzlin, in moving for summary judgment, properly shifted the burden of proof on Kennedy's and Pate's direct-negligence claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded