S.C. Lawyers Weekly News Story 5-12-08 -- Fourth Circuit Affirms Comfort Inn Fire Case Dismissals

Lawyers Weekly reports the Fourth Circuit answered no to the novel S.C. question of law as to whether a hotel franchisor owes a duty to guests to require franchisees to retrofit sprinklers, and further denied the victims request that the S.C. Supreme court decide the question.

The publication noted from the court: "The mere terms of the franchise agreement do not establish that Choice exerted sufficient control over the operations of the hotel to create a duty," the court said, citing case law from Wisconsin and North Carolina.

"At best, taken together, the franchise agreement and the rules and regulations show that [the franchisee] operated and controlled the Comfort Inn under general guidelines intended to foster consistency throughout the Choice system," the opinion stated.

Foster, the plaintiffs' lawyer disagreed with that:

"They controlled the detailed aspects of the life safety systems and instructed the franchisees what they had to do in that regard and they failed to instruct them to do the most important thing they should've done, which is to put in sprinklers," he said.

According to Foster, most consumers don't understand that many hotels are not operated
by the national chains.

"They proudly display the sign of the franchisor and create impressions to the general traveling public, but when you see who is really running the operation, it could be some little mom-and-pop that is thinly capitalized, has few assets and very little liability coverage," he said.

Lawyers Weekly also reported that according to the court, Choice did not engage in a voluntary undertaking, as argued by the Plaintiffs, in regulating the hotel's fire safety equipment through the rules and regulations: "Instead, Choice merely guarded its trademark by assuring uniform appearance and operations of hotels under the Comfort Inn mark," the opinion stated.