Court Opinion

ID: 9709526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:49:56.747685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:49.699069
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The decision in Clem v. Steveco, Inc. (1983), Ind.App., 450 N.E.2d 550, 555-56, rested upon a determination that the trial court improperly looked beyond the complaint in ruling upon the defendant/franchisor’s T.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Here, the trial court was presented with a question of law on summary judgment.
In relevant part the trial court found: 1) that at the time the fryer was purchased there existed no approved supplier agreement between the supplier of the fryer and the defendants; 2) that the defendants did not retain control or direction over the manner and means of work of the franchisee’s employees; 3) that no duty was imposed upon the defendants; and 4) that no act or omission by the defendants could be considered a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries. The court’s findings did not require resolution of a material factual dispute.
While not binding upon this Court, the reasoning in Coty v. U.S. Slicing Mach. Co., Inc. (1978), 58 Ill.App.3d 237, 15 Ill.Dec. 687, 691, 373 N.E.2d 1371, 1375, is instructive. The court discussed the analogy between independent contractor/employer relationships as a basis for liability and the franchisee/franchisor agreements. The court stated:
“[T]he mere reservation of ‘a general right to order the work stopped or resumed, to inspect its progress or to receive reports, to make suggestions or recommendations which need not necessarily be followed, or to prescribe alterations and deviations ... does not mean that the contractor is controlled as to his methods of work, or as to operative detail.’ ”
Id. at 691, 373 N.E.2d at 1375, (quoting Weber v. Northern Illinois Gas Company (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 625, 639, 295 N.E.2d 41, 50, citing the Restatement of Torts (Second), Section 414).
The findings of the trial court, coupled with the reasoning in Coty adequately support the entry of summary judgment. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.