To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Murphy v. Holiday Inns, Inc

Citation. Murphy v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 216 Va. 490, 219 S.E.2d 874, 81 A.L.R.3d 756 (Va. 1975)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff, Kyran Murphy, slipped and injured herself at a hotel operated that was franchised by Defendant, Holiday Inns, Inc., to a third party.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

When establishing an agency relationship through a contract, the nature and extent of the control agreed upon will determine whether the agency exists.


Plaintiff slipped and fell on a puddle of water that was dripping from an air conditioning unit at the hotel. Plaintiff wanted to hold Defendant accountable for her injuries. A third party owned the hotel, but they agreed to a franchise agreement with Defendant that dictated the name and look of the building and fixtures. The agreement also required the third party to submit reports and pay Defendant a certain amount per room per day.


The issue is whether the franchise contract established a master-servant relationship.


The contract did not establish a master-servant relationship. Many of the provisions of the contract were in place to protect Defendant’s trademark. However, normal day-to-day operations, such as hiring, price structure and business expenditures were still controlled by the third party hotel owner.


The court allowed a summary judgment because the issue before the court was a question of law since it was interpreting terms of a contract.

The court noted that franchise agreements can still establish a master-servant relationship, but the agreement here did not meet the burden. However, the court seems to raise the bar for proving an agency relationship when the master-principal is obligated to exert further control to protect a trademark.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following