Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

BUTLER v. MCDONALD'S CORP. Case Brief

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island2000
110 F.Supp.2d 62 Torts Agency & Partnership Civil Procedure

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A franchisor (McDonald’s) sought summary judgment after a customer was injured at a franchisee’s restaurant. The court denied the motion, finding a jury could hold the franchisor liable under theories of actual or apparent agency due to its extensive control over the franchisee’s operations.

Legal Significance: Establishes that a franchisor’s extensive control over a franchisee’s operations—through manuals, inspections, and branding—can create a genuine issue of material fact regarding both actual and apparent agency, exposing the franchisor to vicarious liability for the franchisee’s torts.

BUTLER v. MCDONALD'S CORP. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The plaintiff, a minor, was injured when a glass door shattered at a McDonald’s restaurant in North Kingstown, Rhode Island. The restaurant was owned and operated by James Cooper, a franchisee, under a lease and license agreement with the defendant, McDonald’s Corporation. The plaintiff alleged that a pre-existing “spider crack” in the door, which had been present for over two weeks, created an unsafe condition that proximately caused his injury. The franchise agreement explicitly stated that no agency relationship was created and that the franchisee was an independent contractor responsible for maintenance. However, the agreement also required the franchisee to adhere to McDonald’s “comprehensive” system, detailed in operational and training manuals. The defendant franchisor retained rights to conduct frequent inspections of the premises and operations and could terminate the franchise for material breaches. The restaurant featured McDonald’s ubiquitous branding, logos, and employee uniforms, making it indistinguishable from a corporate-owned location. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty and could not be held vicariously liable for the franchisee’s alleged negligence.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Can a franchisor be held vicariously liable for the negligence of its franchisee when the franchise agreement disclaims an agency relationship, but the franchisor retains extensive control over the franchisee’s daily operations and projects a uniform brand identity to the public?

Yes. The court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Can a franchisor be held vicariously liable for the negligence of its franchisee when the franchise agreement disclaims an agency relationship, but the franchisor retains extensive control over the franchisee’s daily operations and projects a uniform brand identity to the public?

Conclusion

This case demonstrates how courts can look past formal disclaimers in franchise Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostru

Legal Rule

A franchisor may be held vicariously liable for its franchisee's torts if Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat null

Legal Analysis

The court analyzed two primary theories of vicarious liability: actual agency and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum d

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A franchisor may be vicariously liable for a franchisee’s negligence if
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, s

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More