## Facts

- Reginald O’Banner allegedly slipped and fell in a restroom at a McDonald’s restaurant at 29 East 87th Street in Chicago on February 1, 1990.
- He claimed he slipped on what he believed was ice or water and sought damages for personal injuries.
- O’Banner sued McDonald’s Corporation, alleging it owned or controlled the restaurant and was vicariously liable for negligence in operating and maintaining the premises.
- McDonald’s asserted the restaurant was owned and operated by a franchisee and that McDonald’s neither owned, operated, maintained, nor controlled the location.
- The franchisee owners were also named but were not served and did not participate in the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a franchisor may be held vicariously liable under apparent agency for alleged negligence at a franchised restaurant.
2. Whether apparent-agency liability requires evidence that the plaintiff actually and justifiably relied on the franchisor’s manifestations when choosing to patronize the franchise location.
3. Whether summary judgment for the franchisor was proper where the record lacked evidence of the plaintiff’s reliance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the appellate court, affirmed summary judgment for McDonald’s Corporation, and remanded for further proceedings as to remaining parties.
- The court held that apparent agency requires proof that the plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred but for the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the appearance of an agency relationship.
- The record contained no evidence that O’Banner chose to enter or patronize the restaurant because he believed it was owned or operated by McDonald’s Corporation.
- Because reliance was unsupported, there was no genuine issue of material fact on apparent agency, and summary judgment for McDonald’s was proper.
- The dissent would have found a triable fact issue on reliance and would have allowed the claim to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Apparent agency is an estoppel-based doctrine under which a principal may be vicariously liable for an apparent agent’s torts only if the plaintiff actually and justifiably relied on the principal’s manifestations of agency.
- General branding and advertising that could create a public impression of corporate control do not, without more, establish the plaintiff’s own reliance.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when an essential element of a claim lacks evidentiary support, leaving no genuine issue of material fact for trial.

## Conclusion

The court limited franchisor vicarious liability under apparent agency by requiring individualized proof that the injured patron actually and justifiably relied on the franchisor’s manifestations when deciding to patronize the franchised location; absent such evidence, the franchisor is entitled to summary judgment.


O’Banner v. McDonald’s Corp., 173 Ill. 2d 208, 670 N.E.2d 632 (Ill. 1996)