7-Eleven Not Liable for Clerk's Injuries in Holdup at Franchisee's Store, Judge Rules
"In short, the franchise agreement shows with clarity that, while 7-Eleven does have certain control over the store, it does not exercise control over the day-to-day operations of the store," the judge said.
June 18, 2020 at 04:26 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge in Camden has tossed out a lawsuit against 7-Eleven Corp. filed by a store employee injured in an armed robbery.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Rodriguez dismissed the suit after finding 7-Eleven owed no duty of care to the employee, Adil Boutahli. Rodriguez found that case law cited by the company established that Boutahli must show that the company had day-to-day control over the store, but the judge said the facts did not support such an assertion.
While the franchise agreement gives 7-Eleven control over many aspects of the store's operations, the agreement also says the franchisee controls "the manner and means of and the conduct of your agents and employees, including the day-to-day operations of the Store and all Store employees."
"In short, the franchise agreement shows with clarity that, while 7-Eleven does have certain control over the store, it does not exercise control over the day-to-day operations of the store," Rodriguez wrote. It follows that "agency theories do not provide a basis for 7-Eleven to be held liable for the harms that Boutahli suffered as a result of the armed robbery."
In addition, Rodriguez wrote, courts have held that a franchisor's duty under agency theories is synonymous with whether it is a "possessor of land." Because 7-Eleven does not possess the land, it does not owe Boutahli a duty of care, and it is entitled to summary judgment, Rodriguez said.
Rodriguez also dismissed claims against North Bay Associates, a company that subleased the premises to 7-Eleven. Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that North Bay is a possessor of the land in question, it has "less control over the property than 7-Eleven does," Rodriguez said when he granted it summary judgment.
"7-Eleven has a clearly defined limited role when it comes to how the store operates each day. It follows that, like in the cases discussed above, agency theories do not provide a basis for 7-Eleven to be held liable for the harms that Boutahli suffered as a result of the armed robbery," Rodriguez said.
Boutahli, then 28, was working by himself on the overnight shift at a 7-Eleven in Pennsauken in November 2013 when three men entered the store, pistol-whipped and shot him when he reached for an emergency alarm button.
Boutahli suffered injuries to his spinal cord with partial paralysis, as well as psychological conditions that include post-traumatic stress disorder.
Scott Goldberg of Petrillo & Goldberg in Pennsauken, who represented Boutahli, did not respond to a request for comment. Daniel Young of Ward Greenberg in Philadelphia, representing 7-Eleven and North Bay, also did not respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
Gibbons Attorneys File WARN Violations Against Christmas Tree Shops Owners for Short Layoff Notices
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 2A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 3Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 4State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 5Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.