KETTERLING v. Burger King Corp., 272 P.3d 527

Ketterling slipped in the Burley Burger King parking lot on December 22, 2006.
BDSB of Western Idaho operates the Burley Burger King under a franchise with Burger King; HB Boys manages the restaurant under HB Boys' contract with BDSB.
Ketterling filed suit on November 5, 2008, naming Burger King only; service on Burger King occurred January 30, 2009, who forwarded it to HB Boys.
Ketterling amended the complaint on May 21, 2009 to add HB Boys as a defendant.
The district court granted HB Boys and Burger King summary judgment, and Ketterling appealed, including access to Burger King’s Burley franchise agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relation back of HB Boys addition under Rule 15(c)	Ketterling asserts HB Boys had notice and would not be prejudiced.	HB Boys argues no relation back because amendment occurred after limitations.	No relation back; amendment not relate back.
Tolling under I.C. § 53-509(1) for assumed names	HB Boys’ noncompliance may toll limitations per Winn.	Noncompliance did not toll where plaintiff failed diligence.	Statute not tolled; tolling not shown.
Franchisor liability for premises torts	Burger King had control via operations manual and paid oversight.	General franchise requirements do not prove daily control; no right to control premises.	Franchisor not liable; no control shown.
Access to franchise agreement	Agreement relevant to control and must be produced.	District court acted within discretion to withhold; document not discoverable.	District court did not abuse discretion.
Attorney fees on appeal	N/A or reasonable concerns on why fee should be awarded.	Fees requested for frivolous appeal may be warranted.	Fees denied; costs awarded.

Wait v. Leavell Cattle, Inc., 136 Idaho 792 (2002) (Test for relation back under Rule 15(c))
Winn v. Campbell, 145 Idaho 727 (2008) (Assumed names tolling discussed; diligence matters)
Miller v. Idaho State Patrol, 150 Idaho 856 (2011) (Standard of review for summary judgment)