which considers a franchisor’s control or right of control over the daily operation of the specific aspect of the franchisee’s business that is alleged to have caused the harm). 24 .See id. at 338-39 (discussing at length traditional master/servant test for vicarious liability and concluding that the principles and objectives are insufficient in the franchisor/franchisee context and identifying a clear trend in the case law in other jurisdictions); Pizza K, Inc. v. Santagata, 249 Ga.App. 36, 547 S.E:2d 405, 406-07 (2001) (held summary judgment in favor of franchisor proper in case involving negligence of franchisee’s delivery driver when evidence demonstrated that franchisor did not have sufficient authority to control the time, manner, and method of ex 5, 166 S.W.2d 38 (1942) (<HOLDING>); J.J. Newberry Co. v. Judd, 259 Ky. 309, 82
holding school district strictly hable for sexual harassment by its employees holding a store vicariously hable when its assistant manager falsely imprisoned the plaintiff holding a racetrack vicariously hable when its security guard assaulted the plaintiff with a club holding the issue of gross negligence was a jury question where a branch manager was murdered during a robbery after the bank suffered two prior robberies and had withdrawn an armed security guard in violation of their own security manual holding that employer is not vicariously hable for employees negligence while driving to work where such driving conferred no special benefit upon employer other than to make employees services available