## Facts

- Northeast Restaurant Corporation (Northeast) operated a “Bickford’s” restaurant in Medford, Massachusetts under a franchise/licensing agreement with Bickford’s Family Restaurants, Inc. (Bickford’s).
- Under the agreement, Bickford’s permitted use of its name and trademarks and set brand-related requirements (including building design/layout, menus, recipes, and food quality/consistency).
- Bickford’s did not control the restaurant’s day-to-day activities, did not hire or fire Northeast employees, did not make personnel decisions, did not supervise on-site operations, and did not assume responsibility for the restaurant’s operating costs.
- Bickford’s provided limited support such as off-site accounting functions and product/quality materials (e.g., manuals concerning food consistency).
- Sandra Berfield worked as a server at the Medford restaurant for many years.
- Steven Caruso was a long-time, frequent customer of the restaurant and was also periodically hired by Northeast as a handyman to perform repair and maintenance work.
- Caruso had a history of harassing waitresses at the restaurant. Servers complained to management about his behavior over time.
- In 1997, Caruso’s behavior escalated and became focused on Berfield, beginning with efforts to sit in her section and escalating after she declined his invitation to go out with him.
- Northeast management met with Caruso and attempted to restrict his conduct in the restaurant, including barring him from sitting in Berfield’s section and from staring at her.
- Caruso’s conduct escalated outside the workplace, including appearing at Berfield’s home and damaging her car (e.g., slashing tires and pouring battery acid). Caruso was incarcerated for a period as a result of this misconduct.
- The restaurant did not allow Caruso onto the premises for roughly 15 months.
- In 2000, Caruso killed Berfield by leaving a package bomb outside her apartment.
- Robert F. Brun, as administrator of Berfield’s estate, sued Caruso and also sued Northeast and Bickford’s for negligence/wrongful death based on an alleged failure to provide a secure workplace.
- Northeast and Bickford’s each moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Northeast, as Berfield’s employer and the restaurant operator, owed a duty to take reasonable steps to protect her from Caruso’s criminal acts based on foreseeability and a “special relationship,” such that summary judgment should be denied.
2. Whether Berfield’s off-premises death could be found proximately caused by Northeast’s alleged failure to respond reasonably to Caruso’s escalating conduct, or whether causation was too remote as a matter of law.
3. Whether Bickford’s could be held vicariously liable for Northeast’s alleged negligence based on the degree of control retained or exercised under the franchise/licensing arrangement.
4. Whether Bickford’s owed Berfield any independent duty arising from its limited involvement in brand standards and support functions.

## Decision

- The court denied Northeast’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court allowed Bickford’s motion for summary judgment.
- As to Northeast, the court held the record contained sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether Northeast had a duty to protect Berfield from foreseeable harm by Caruso and whether Northeast’s response to known, escalating risks was reasonable.
- As to Northeast, the court declined to treat the off-premises location and time gap as automatically breaking causation; the court left breach and causation for the factfinder on the summary-judgment record.
- As to Bickford’s, the court held that Bickford’s brand and product standards, along with limited support services, did not amount to operational control over hiring, supervision, or workplace security sufficient to create an agency relationship or support vicarious liability.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Under Massachusetts tort law, a duty to take reasonable precautions against third-party criminal conduct may arise where a special relationship exists and the risk of harm is reasonably foreseeable.
- An employer-employee relationship, together with evidence that an employer knew or should have known of a specific, escalating threat, can support a jury finding of a duty to take reasonable protective measures.
- Questions of breach and proximate cause in negligence, including whether an intervening criminal act cuts off liability, often present fact issues; they may be resolved as a matter of law only when the causal connection is too attenuated on the record.
- A franchisor/licensor is not vicariously liable for a franchisee’s torts absent evidence that the franchisor controlled the means and manner of the franchisee’s day-to-day operations, particularly the area tied to the alleged negligence (here, workplace management and security).
- Requirements aimed at uniform branding and product consistency, without control over staffing, supervision, or security policy, are generally insufficient to establish agency or a direct duty to a franchisee’s employee.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court ruled that the negligence claims against Northeast could proceed because a jury could find that Northeast had notice of Caruso’s escalating harassment and stalking and owed Berfield a duty to take reasonable steps to protect her from foreseeable harm, with breach and causation remaining triable issues despite the off-premises killing. In contrast, the court granted summary judgment to Bickford’s because its involvement was limited to trademark licensing and brand/product standards, not day-to-day operational or security control that could support vicarious or direct liability for the alleged failure to provide a secure workplace.


Brun v. Caruso, 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 547 (2004)