TEMPLE v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION
2:11-cv-07516
E.D. Pa.Mar 13, 2012Background
- Linda Temple slipped on ice near the wheelchair ramp and walkway at a Rising Sun, Maryland McDonald's restaurant and suffered injuries.
- Linda and her husband Paul Temple filed a diversity action against McDonald's Corporation; Paul sought loss of consortium.
- McDonald's Corporation moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Venue argument centered on corporate residence and personal jurisdiction; McDonald's of Maryland was not a party to the suit.
- Maryland law governs negligence claims; the landlord-tenant framework is analyzed to determine duty and control over the premises.
- Court held McDonald's Corporation did not exercise control over the icy condition and granted 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim; venue denial was unnecessary due to lack of party status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper as to McDonald's Corporation | Temple argues corporate residence and PJ make venue proper. | McDonald's Corporation contends only McDonald's of Maryland is liable; venue as to the Corporation is improper. | Venue as to McDonald's Corporation denied; discussion moot given lack of ownership party status |
| Whether McDonald's Corporation owed a duty to plaintiffs | Defendant’s control or oversight created a duty to maintain premises. | Lease/License show McDonald's of Maryland controlled day-to-day operations; Corporation did not control the ice condition. | No duty found for McDonald's Corporation; it did not exercise control over the icy condition |
| Whether the complaint states a claim for negligence against McDonald's Corporation | Complaint alleges failure to maintain, inspect, and warn about hazardous conditions. | Complaint lacks any negligent design or construction theory and fails to allege actionable conduct by the Corporation. | Complaint insufficient under Iqbal/Twombly; 12(b)(6) dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim, not mere recitals)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (exacting plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (fact pleading standard in Rule 12(b)(6) context)
- Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White, 998 F.2d 1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (authentication of matters of public record; exhibits may be considered)
- Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst., Inc., 782 A.2d 807 (Md. 2001) (duty elements for Maryland negligence claims)
- Hemmings v. Pelham Wood Ltd. Liab. Ltd. P'ship, 826 A.2d 443 (Md. 2003) (landlord duty when control and foreseeability exist)
- Matthews v. Amberwood Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 719 A.2d 119 (Md. 1998) (balancing landlord control and foreseeability in duty decisions)
- Wendy Hong Wu v. Dunkin' Donuts, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 83 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (absence of duty over daily operations by franchise owner)
- Hoffnagle v. McDonald's Corp., 522 N.W.2d 808 (Iowa 1994) (control limits of franchisor regarding premises and operations)