A person found a sapphire stone in their McDonald's Big Mac sandwich and is suing the McDonald's Corporation for damages. The court is deciding if McDonald's is responsible for the franchisee's negligence, and if so, under what theory of vicarious liability. The court is looking at previous cases and using a test to determine if McDonald's had enough control over the franchisee to establish an actual agency relationship. The plaintiff argues that McDonald's is also responsible under the theory of apparent agency because the sign outside the restaurant made it seem like the franchisee was McDonald's agent. The court is considering whether there is evidence that the plaintiff depended on and trusted McDonald's to provide a consistent experience at all McDonald's restaurants.

Miller v. McDonald's Corp. (1997)
Oregon Court of Appeals
150 Or. App. 274, 945 P.2d 1107

Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]

---

Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.

Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]

Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.

Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]

свернуть