Be Careful – Titles Can Get You in Trouble

Be Careful – Titles Can Get You in Trouble

      A recent decision highlights the damage of using atypical titles which may be interpreted and applied to increase liability.  Watson v. Daniel, Civ. Act. No. 14-CV-1122, 2015 WL 737650 (W.D. La. Jan 9, 2015)

      Watson, the Plaintiff, suffered a slip and fall at an Outback Steakhouse Restaurant.  In state court she sued a variety of business entities she alleged to be responsible.  She also sued Randal Daniel, Jr., an individual identified at the front of the restaurant as the “Proprietor.”  Outback remanded the case to Federal court on the basis of diversity, assisting that Daniel was not a proper party in that he was a mere employee.  If Daniel were potentially liable on Watson’s claims the removal would have been improper.  Watson asserted that Daniel was a co-owner of the restaurant with the Outback Corporation and therefore potentially liable.

      Essentially:

There was a window above the front doors of the Bossier City restaurant on which was embossed in large letters: “Proprietor: Randy Daniel.” Defendants contend that this title, apparently commonly used to describe managers at Outback restaurants, does not mean Daniel owned the business.  Daniel testifies in an affidavit attached to the notice of removal as Exhibit C that he is “employed by Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC in the position of proprietor.”  He added:  “I do not own any part of the restaurant premises” and “am an employee of the company.”  He also testifies that he did not “personally employee any individual working at Outback Steakhouse on the night of the alleged incident.”  Outback also offered the affidavit of company official Tiffany Rebstock who testified that the allegation that Daniel was a co-owner of the Bossier restaurant was “false” because “Daniel does not own any part of the restaurant premises” located in Bossier and did not own any stake or share in Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC.

      Based on the evidence presented the Court determined that Daniel had no exposure on Watson’s claims and should be dismissed.

      Still, one wonders if the potential burden of explaining an atypical title is worth the perceived benefits thereof.  Here the Court accepted the explanation and dismissed Daniel.  It just as easily could have left him in place, returning the action to state court.

      I’m aware of, in Louisville, several corporate owned restaurants who on signage identify the local manager as the “managing partner” of the restaurant.  In a suit against one of those establishments, there will be questions as to the liabilities of that “managing partner.”