A franchisor that exercises a high degree of control over a franchisee's operations — including control over premises, security arrangements, and operating procedures — may owe a duty of care to the franchisee's employees to protect them from criminal acts of third parties. However, a plaintiff injured by criminal conduct must prove on the balance of probabilities that the breach (failure to install protective measures) was a necessary condition of the harm — it is not sufficient to show that the measures would have made the robbery more difficult if there is no evidence the robbery would not have occurred or that the plaintiff would have acted differently behind the protective measures.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.