You are here: / / THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S,...
, ,

THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S, PLAZA TOYOTA’S, DAILY OPERATIONS; THEREFORE TOYOTA COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PLAZA TOYOTA’S NEGLIGENCE; HERE A WHEEL FELL OFF PLAINTIFF’S CAR AFTER IT WAS SERVICED AT PLAZA TOYOTA (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint against the franchisor, here Toyota, for the negligence of the franchisee car dealership, Plaza Toyota, should have been dismissed. After the plaintiff’s car was worked on at Plaza Toyota, a front wheel fell off:

Supreme Court erred in denying the Toyota defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims insofar as asserted against them. “In determining whether a defendant, as a franchisor, may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, the most significant factor is the degree of control that the franchisor maintains over the daily operations of the franchisee or, more specifically, the manner of performing the very work in the course of which the accident occurred” … .

Here, affidavits submitted by the Toyota defendants in support of their motion established, prima facie, that they lacked the requisite control over the manner in which Plaza Toyota serviced vehicles … . Caceres v Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 02492, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: A franchisor can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a franchisee only if the franchisor exercises control over the franchisee’s daily operations, not the case here.

 

You might also like
Glass Plate in Wall Under Demolition Was Not a “Falling Object” within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE ON THE GROUND CUTTING A TREE, BECAUSE GRAVITY WAS NOT INVOLVED LABOR LAW 240 (1) DID NOT APPLY, BUT BECAUSE CUTTING THE TREE WAS ANCILLARY TO WORK ON A STRUCTURE, LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRUSTEES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OR LACHES DEFENSES TO THE ACTION SEEKING AN ESTATE ACCOUNTING; THE TRUSTEES DID NOT OPENLY REPUDIATE THEIR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE TIME DID NOT BEGIN TO RUN FOR EITHER DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED A DECISION TO GO TO TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIONALE BECAUSE OF HIS FAMILY OBLIGATIONS; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HIS ATTORNEY MISADVISED HIM ON THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER TRIAL ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; COMPLAINT REINSTATED AND JUDGMENT AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REASONABLY DESCRIBED IS DISTINCT FROM WHETHER A SEARCH FOR THE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME; THE DOCUMENTS WERE SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED AND THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER A SEARCH WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME (SECOND DEPT).
THE BUS DRIVER VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENSE VERDICT SET ASIDE (THIRD DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE; FAILING TO SEE WHAT THERE IS TO... UGELL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED AS A CANDIDATE FOR TOWN SUPERVISOR;...