The CRC for franchisor's area leader

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-Even if a franchisor's area leader who advised franchisees on training and other matters told a franchisee that a supervisor accused of sexual harassment should be terminated, Daylight Savings California neither that statement nor the existence of a comprehensive operating system could give rise to a reasonable inference that the franchisor had an employer's traditional right of general control over the franchisee's day-to-day operations, contrary to the terms of a franchise contract that allocated local personnel issues almost exclusively to the franchisee; [2]-Accordingly, there was no employment relationship within the contemplation of Gov. Code, § 12920.5, to support an employee's Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1), sexual harassment claim against the franchisor, nor could the franchisor be held liable for the supervisor's alleged misconduct under the common-law respondeat superior rule.

Outcome

Judgment of court of appeal reversed.

Procedural Posture

Appellant transit authority sought review of a judgment of the First Appellate District Court, Fourth Division, Contra Costa County, California, upholding a jury verdict finding the authority liable for injuries suffered by a pedestrian trying to reach a bus stop.

Overview

The authority maintained a public bus stop along a busy arterial highway. The surrounding property, including a nearby intersection, which was marked with a pedestrian crosswalk, was the property of Contra Costa County. The authority received numerous complaints regarding access to the bus stop, and there had been auto-pedestrian accidents at the intersection, but the authority took no action to either improve the safety of the bus stop or to move it to the area of the intersection until after the pedestrian was seriously injured trying to cross the highway to get to the bus stop. The appellate court granted review on the limited question of whether the location of a bus stop may constitute a dangerous condition of public property under Cal. Gov't Code § 830, as the bus patrons would be enticed to cross a dangerous crosswalk to reach the bus stop, and held that the authority was properly held liable under Cal. Gov't Code §§ 830 and 835. Neither the fact that the injury occurred on property owned by a third party or that it was caused by negligent conduct by a third-party driver relieved the authority of liability for maintaining a dangerous condition on public property.

Outcome

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.

The authority maintained a public bus stop along a busy arterial highway. The surrounding property, including a nearby intersection, which was marked with a pedestrian crosswalk, was the property of Contra Costa County. The authority received numerous complaints regarding access to the bus stop, and there had been auto-pedestrian accidents at the intersection, but the authority took no action to either improve the safety of the bus stop or to move it to the area of the intersection until after the pedestrian was seriously injured trying to cross the highway to get to the bus stop. The appellate court granted review on the limited question of whether the location of a bus stop may constitute a dangerous condition of public property under Cal. Gov't Code § 830, as the bus patrons would be enticed to cross a dangerous crosswalk to reach the bus stop, and held that the authority was properly held liable under Cal. Gov't Code §§ 830 and 835. Neither the fact that the injury occurred on property owned by a third party or that it was caused by negligent conduct by a third-party driver relieved the authority of liability for maintaining a dangerous condition on public property.

Outcome

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.The authority maintained a public bus stop along a busy arterial highway. The surrounding property, including a nearby intersection, which was marked with a pedestrian crosswalk, was the property of Contra Costa County. The authority received numerous complaints regarding access to the bus stop, and there had been auto-pedestrian accidents at the intersection, but the authority took no action to either improve the safety of the bus stop or to move it to the area of the intersection until after the pedestrian was seriously injured trying to cross the highway to get to the bus stop. The appellate court granted review on the limited question of whether the location of a bus stop may constitute a dangerous condition of public property under Cal. Gov't Code § 830, as the bus patrons would be enticed to cross a dangerous crosswalk to reach the bus stop, and held that the authority was properly held liable under Cal. Gov't Code §§ 830 and 835. Neither the fact that the injury occurred on property owned by a third party or that it was caused by negligent conduct by a third-party driver relieved the authority of liability for maintaining a dangerous condition on public property.

Outcome

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.The authority maintained a public bus stop along a busy arterial highway. The surrounding property, including a nearby intersection, which was marked with a pedestrian crosswalk, was the property of Contra Costa County. The authority received numerous complaints regarding access to the bus stop, and there had been auto-pedestrian accidents at the intersection, but the authority took no action to either improve the safety of the bus stop or to move it to the area of the intersection until after the pedestrian was seriously injured trying to cross the highway to get to the bus stop. The appellate court granted review on the limited question of whether the location of a bus stop may constitute a dangerous condition of public property under Cal. Gov't Code § 830, as the bus patrons would be enticed to cross a dangerous crosswalk to reach the bus stop, and held that the authority was properly held liable under Cal. Gov't Code §§ 830 and 835. Neither the fact that the injury occurred on property owned by a third party or that it was caused by negligent conduct by a third-party driver relieved the authority of liability for maintaining a dangerous condition on public property.

Outcome

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.

I am Jackie from California The authority maintained a public bus stop along a busy arterial highway. The surrounding property, including a nearby intersection, which was marked with a pedestrian crosswalk, was the property