## Facts

- Mobil Oil Corporation owned a gasoline station property operating as a “Mobil Mini Mart” in Broward County, Florida, and leased it to Alan Berman, who ran the station.
- Jeremy Bransford, a customer, was assaulted and beaten on the premises by one of Berman’s employees; the employee allegedly had a history of assaulting customers.
- Mobil did not employ the assailant; the employee worked for Berman.
- Bransford sued Mobil, seeking to impose vicarious liability based on apparent agency between Mobil and Berman.
- Bransford relied on Mobil’s ownership of the premises, sale of Mobil-branded products, prominent Mobil signage and logos, contractual requirements concerning Mobil symbols/products, and visits by Mobil representatives providing routine franchise support.
- The lease/franchise agreement characterized Berman as an independent businessman and disclaimed any Mobil right to control or direct the business’s conduct or management.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s allegations and record evidence were legally sufficient to impose vicarious liability on the franchisor/lessor under an apparent agency theory for an intentional tort committed by the franchisee’s employee.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court’s decision and reinstated summary judgment for Mobil.
- The Court held the allegations were legally insufficient to establish apparent agency between Mobil and the station operator.
- The Court concluded that branding, required use of trademarks, sale of franchisor products, and routine franchise support services did not show Mobil’s direct or apparent participation in managing or directing relevant franchisee activities.

## Legal Principles

- Apparent agency requires a manifestation by the alleged principal that would lead a reasonable third party to believe an agency relationship exists, plus reliance on that belief.
- In the franchise context, use of logos, trademarks, standardized appearance, product requirements, and ordinary franchise support services, without more, do not create apparent agency or justify vicarious liability.
- A franchisor may face apparent-agency liability only when, by contract or conduct, it directly or apparently participates in a substantial way in directing or managing the franchisee’s relevant operations beyond routine franchise support.
- Contractual independent-contractor language is strong evidence against agency absent proof that the parties actually or apparently departed from that arrangement in practice.

## Conclusion

The court held that apparent agency could not be inferred from a branded franchise setting and routine franchisor involvement; without affirmative indications of substantial franchisor direction or management of the franchisee’s relevant operations, the franchisor is not vicariously liable for torts committed by the franchisee’s employees.


Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bransford, 648 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1995)