Superior Court Rules that It Can Review A Trial Court's Decision On a MSJ Even After a Jury Verdict

In the case of Coryell v. Morris, No. 1977 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Nov. 8, 2023 Bowes, J., King, J., and Pellegrini, J.) (Op. by Pellegrini, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the issue of whether an appellate court may review the propriety of a trial court’s denial of a Motion for Summary Judgment even after the case then proceeded to trial and a jury entered a verdict in favor of a Plaintiff in a personal injury case. The Superior court answered that question, in a split decision, in the affirmative.

This case arose out of a motor vehicle accident that involved a Domino’s Pizza delivery driver.

Before the trial, Domino’s moved for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held vicariously liable because, under its franchise agreement, its relationship with the franchisee was that of an independent contractor/contractee rather than master-servant relationship.

The trial court had found that there were genuine issues of material fact involved on the question presented and, therefore, denied Domino’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Thereafter, the case went to trial and a jury found Domino’s vicariously liable and awarded damages. 

On appeal, the Superior Court ruled that it had the authority to review a trial court’s decision on a pre-trial Motion for Summary Judgment even after the case had proceeded to trial and a jury entered a verdict.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reviewed the record before it and concluded that the franchise agreement did not give Domino’s day-to-day control over the franchisee and that, under these circumstances, the Superior Court agreed with Domino’s that it should have been granted summary judgment as there was no valid claim of vicarious liability.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Judge Bowes Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article -- “Pa. Appeals Court Clears Domino’s From Paying $2.3M Delivery Driver Crash Verdict” By: Aleeza Furman Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 10, 2023).

UPS Delivery Person Deemed a Licensee Relative to a Trip and Fall Event on a Homeowner's Property

In the case of Cornfield v. Mitchell, No. 10596-CV-2021 (C.P. Erie Co. Oct. 2, 2023 Mead, J.), the trial court addressed the issue of what status a home delivery person, such as a UPS delivery person, had in the eyes of the law in a fall-down case on a homeowner’s property, i.e., whether that Plaintiff delivery person would be a business invitee, or a licensee.

In this case, the judge ruled that a UPS driver who fell on the Defendant’s property was a licensee and not a business invitee. 

In so ruling, the court cited to the case of Figueroa v. Meitzner, 2022 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1832 *8-9 (Pa. Super. 2020) citing Sharp v. Luksa, 269 A.2d 659 (Pa. 1970), noting that “the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopted §342 of the THE RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS to express the duty that landowners in this Commonwealth owed to business licensee, such as packaged deliverers….”  Under that analysis, delivery persons are deemed to be licensees in premises liability cases where the delivery driver is injured on a homeowner's property.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this detailed Order, which does to come with any Opinion, may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney William C. Wagner of the Erie, PA office of Marnen, Mioduszewski, Bordonaro, Wagner & Sinnott, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Aaron Doucett on www.Pexels.com.