Massage Heights Franchising, LLC v. Hagman (2025 Tex. LEXIS 359):
- Negligence and Duty of Care:
The central legal issue was whether Massage Heights Franchising, LLC (the franchisor) owed a duty of care to Hagman, a customer who was sexually assaulted by a massage therapist employed by MH Alden Bridge, a franchisee. The court examined whether the franchisor had sufficient control—either contractually or through actual exercise—over the hiring process of the franchisee to give rise to such a duty.
- Control Over Franchisee’s Operations:
The court analyzed whether the franchisor’s franchise agreement and operations manual gave it the right or actual control over the specific activity (hiring of employees) that led to the injury. It was determined that the franchisee was designated as an independent contractor with sole responsibility for employment decisions, including hiring, firing, training, and supervision. The franchisor’s role was limited to providing guidance and advice, which was deemed insufficient to establish a duty of care.
- Negligent Undertaking:
The issue of whether Massage Heights undertook a duty to protect customers by providing training and operational standards was considered. The court found no evidence that any failure by the franchisor to train or investigate the franchisee’s operations proximately caused the injury, nor that the franchisor undertook to make the premises safe for customers.
- Vicarious Liability and Proximate Cause:
The court addressed whether the franchisor could be held vicariously liable for the acts of the franchisee or its employees. It was held that, absent control over the injury-causing conduct, such liability could not be imposed. The only plausible proximate cause of the assault was the franchisee’s decision to hire the therapist, which the franchisor did not control.
- Existing Duty Rules and Precedent:
The court applied established Texas law, holding that a general contractor or franchisor does not owe a duty to ensure an independent contractor safely performs work unless there is control over the specific activity that caused the injury. The court distinguished this case from prior precedent (e.g., Read v. Scott Fetzer Co., 990 S.W.2d 732), where the franchisor retained control over the injury-causing activity.
- Procedural Outcome:
The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower court’s judgment in part, holding that Massage Heights did not owe a duty of care to Hagman regarding the hiring of the massage therapist and that there was no legally sufficient evidence to support liability under a negligent undertaking theory. Judgment was rendered that Hagman take nothing from Massage Heights on her claims.
