Superior Court Reviews Vicarious Liability of Domino's In MVA Case, And Whether Trial Court Decision on MSJ Remains Reviewable on Appeal After Entry of Verdict

In the case of Coryell v. Morris, No. 1977 EDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Jan. 31, 2025) (en banc) (Op. by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that a Domino’s franchise relationship with the delivery driver’s employer created grounds for the pizza chain to be bound vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence during the course of a motor vehicle accident.

Some litigators viewed the court’s analysis in this case as setting up a framework for establishing a franchisor’s vicarious liability in cases involving alleged negligence on the part of a franchisee.

In this decision, the Superior Court found that there was sufficient evidence in the records to show that the franchiser exercised sufficient control over the franchisee to support the finding of vicarious liability.

Also of note was the fact that the Superior Court ruled that a jury’s resolution of the factual issues presented in the case, which involve, in part, factual disputes regarding Domino’s control over the franchisee, such findings by the jury rendered the propriety of the trial court’s summary judgment ruling moot. More specifically, the Superior Court in this case ruled that “[a] trial court’s denial of a fact-dependent pre-trial [motion for summary judgment] is not reviewable when the issue was subsequently resolved at trial.”

It is noted that, in the Dissenting Opinion, Judge King noted that the Superior Court should have decided that it remained capable of reviewing the trial court's denial of the pre-trial Motion for Summary Judgment given the confusion in the caselaw surrounding the issue at the time the trial court ruled on the motion.   

In the end, the Superior Court’s ruling in this case rendered Domino’s Pizza again responsible, at least in part, for the $2.3 million dollar judgment awarded to the Plaintiff motorcyclist who was struck by a Domino’s Pizza delivery driver’s vehicle.

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

Source: “Pa. Superior Court Rules Pizza Chain Liable For Franchisee Driver’s Crash” by Aleza Furman of the Legal Intelligencer (Feb. 4, 2025).

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).