In Little v. Howard Johnson Co, 183 Mich App 675; 455 NW2d 390 (1990), a patron slipped and fell on an outside walkway at a franchise operating as a Howard Johnson restaurant. Id. at 677. The plaintiff sued the franchisor, Howard Johnson Company, as the owner and possessor of the land on which she was injured. Id. at 677-678. The Court held that, because Howard Johnson was not in possession and control of the premises, no direct liability could attach for the plaintiff's injuries. Id. at 679. In Little, the plaintiff claimed Howard Johnson was liable because snow was not adequately cleared from the walkway on which she fell The Court in Little considered the control Howard Johnson retained in its franchise agreement and the actual control it exercised over the location in question. Little, supra at 679. The franchise agreement allowed Howard Johnson to inspect the premises and to monitor merchandise, equipment and operating methods. Id. However, even if the agreement gave Howard Johnson the right to control the land, i.e., the restaurant's maintenance, the Court found no evidence that Howard Johnson actually exercised that control. Id. Consequently, Howard Johnson could not be held directly liable for the plaintiff's injuries. Id.