FRANK DALIA, APPELLANT,
v.
ELECTRONIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Frank Dalia appeals a summary judgment for Electronic Realty Associates (ERA), a franchisor, in a negligence action arising from acts allegedly committed by Northgate Realty, Inc., ERA's franchisee. The court affirmed, holding that neither actual nor apparent agency existed between the franchisor and franchisee, and that Dalia failed to establish reliance necessary for apparent agency liability.
The court held that ERA, the franchisor, was entitled to summary judgment because neither actual nor apparent agency existed between ERA and the franchisee. The plaintiff's deposition negated the reliance element necessary for apparent agency, and the franchise arrangement's requirement that the franchisee hold itself out as independently owned and operated precluded a finding of apparent agency.
[1] A franchisor is not liable for the negligent acts of a franchisee absent a showing of actual or apparent agency.
[2] To establish apparent agency, a plaintiff must demonstrate reliance on the principal's manifestations that the agent was acting on the principal's behalf.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Based on the matters of record, we perceive no facts on which to conclude that the franchisee, Northgate Realty, Inc., was the actual or apparent agent of ERA, and consequently we see no basis for imposition of liability on the franchisor for the allegedly negligent acts of the franchisee.”
Establishes the core holding that neither actual nor apparent agency existed between franchisor and franchisee.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Dalia brought suit against ERA, a real estate franchisor, based on allegedly negligent acts of Northgate Realty, Inc., a franchisee operating un…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Actual Agency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Frank Dalia appeals a summary final judgment in favor of Electronic Realty Associates, Inc. (ERA), defendant below. We agree with the trial court that the franchisor, ERA, was entitled to summary judgment. Based on the matters of record, we perceive no facts on which to conclude that the franchisee, Northgate Realty, Inc., was the actual or apparent agent of ERA, and consequently we see no basis for imposition of liability on the franchisor for the allegedly negligent acts of the franchisee.
As to actual agency, the facts of record do not support the existence of such a relationship. As to apparent agency, plaintiff Dalia’s deposition negates the reliance element. See Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491, 493-94 (Fla.1983) (stating elements of apparent agency). Furthermore, in Orlando Executive Park the franchise relationship was one which authorized the franchisee to do business as Howard Johnson Motor Lodge. The use of a single corporate name-throughout the motel chain, along with the other factors mentioned in the court’s opinion, id. at 492-94,* created the public perception that the Howard Johnson lodges were under common ownership and control, or at least the trier of fact could reasonably so conclude. 433 So. 2d at 494; see also Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322, 332-34 (Fla. 4th DCA), cause dismissed, 589 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1991). In the present case the franchise arrangement requires the franchisee to hold itself out as an independently owned and operated business. As the amended complaint in this cause indicates, the franchisee realty company does business as Northgate Realty, Inc. We see no basis in this record on which to predicate a finding of apparent agency or reasonable reliance by plaintiff. Because the summary judgment was correct with respect to the issue of actual or apparent agency, we need not reach ERA’s alternative argument for affirmance.
We also find no error in the summary judgment on the abuse of process claim.
Affirmed.
*
The supreme court’s opinion also made reference to the evidence reviewed in the opinion of the district court of appeal. Id. at 494, referencing (and approving) Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. P.D.R., 402 So. 2d 442, 449-51 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klaus Roessler v. Russell W. Novak, M.D., 858 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…v. Northcutt, 598 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Font v. Stanley Steemer Int’l, Inc., 849 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (jury question whether franchisor is liable for automobile accident involving franchisee); Dalia v. Elec. Realty Assocs., Inc., 629 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (same).4 It has not worked well to establish responsibility for torts in the context of a complex institution like a hospital that has many interrelated independent contractors working side-by-side for the same customers. It appe…
-
Bruce v. State, 656 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ivil contempt order must include a finding that the alleged contemnor has the ability to purge him or herself. See e.g., Washburn v. Washburn, 647 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Haymon v. Haymon, 640 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Baird v. Baird, 629 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The contempt order in this case fails in both respects. Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted and respondent is directed to immediately release petitioner from the incarceration resulting from the contempt…
Authorities Cited
- Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1983)
- Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Bell v. State, 402 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. P. D. R., 402 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)