99. Is there any basis for a claim by the homeowner against the manufacturer?

The issue in this question is the doctrine of apparent agency, though that doctrine has been referred to many other ways (ostensible agency, apparent agency, etc.). A third party can be vicariously liable under this doctrine when claims of direct negligence and other types of vicarious liability (like respondeat superior) are not available. The underlying theory of this basis for liability is the plaintiff's reasonable belief that the defendant was an agent of a third party when, in fact, no such actual relationship existed. For this doctrine to apply, there must be some reasonable basis for the plaintiff's belief that the defendant was an agent of the third party, and the plaintiff must have relied on that belief.

D is correct. Here, this test is potentially met because the manufacturer supplied materials to the installer, the installer's truck bore the manufacturer's logo, and the literature supplied to the plaintiff also bore manufacturer's logo, all of which the manufacturer knew. Thus, there is a potential basis for vicarious liability under the apparent agency doctrine.

A is incorrect. Franchisors are not under a duty to supervise a franchisee in all situations. However, this answer choice overlooks that, even without a franchisor-franchisee duty to supervise, a third party (such as a franchisor) can be liable under the doctrine of apparent agency to a plaintiff injured by the franchisee's negligence.

B is incorrect. One way that a manufacturer can be liable to a consumer is if the product was defective when it left the manufacturer's hands, the product subsequently caused harm to the plaintiff as a result of that defect, and the harm was caused when the product was being used in an intended way or in a way that was reasonably foreseeable. Liability of that sort is called strict product liability. However, manufacturers can be liable for defective products other ways as well, including negligence, breach of warranty situations, and vicarious liability claims such as under the doctrine of apparent authority. This answer choice ignores those other ways and thus oversimplifies the potential bases for the manufacturer's injuries.

C is incorrect. Franchisors are normally not vicariously liable for the actions of their franchisees such as the installer here. That principle is in line with the general rule that employers are generally not liable for the negligence of their independent contractors. However, as described above, the manufacturer could still be vicariously liable under the doctrine of apparent authority.