January 31, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
January 31, 2025 | Superior Court of Pennsylvania | Published Opinion
Executive Summary
In a published en banc decision, Judge Bowes of the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a Philadelphia jury verdict that imposed vicarious liability on Domino’s Pizza LLC for the negligence of a delivery driver employed by a franchisee. Plaintiffs argued that Domino’s franchise agreement and operating standards gave it pervasive authority over day-to-day operations, while Domino’s countered that it exercised no such control and that its agreement expressly disclaimed an agency relationship. The Superior Court concluded the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence to allow a jury to find an agency relationship and upheld the verdict of more than $2.3 million. Judge King dissented, stressing that Domino’s contractual framework left daily control with the franchisee and warning that the majority’s approach diverged from decisions in other jurisdictions.
Relevant Background
The case arose from a 2016 accident in which Clarence Coryell suffered severe leg injuries when a Domino’s delivery driver employed by Robizza, Inc., a franchisee, turned left into his motorcycle. Coryell and his wife sued the driver, Robizza, and Domino’s for negligence and loss of consortium.
The plaintiffs pointed to Domino’s 2016 operating standards, a fifty-page manual that included rules on employee grooming, jewelry, complaint handling, store hours, cash management, vehicle requirements, and more. They argued that these standards went far beyond brand protection and gave Domino’s control over the day-to-day manner in which the franchisee operated its business.
Domino’s countered that the franchise agreement expressly identified Robizza as an independent contractor, that Robizza alone hired, trained, and supervised its employees, and that Domino’s standards were limited to protecting the brand and ensuring product quality. Domino’s also highlighted contract language disclaiming any liability for damages “arising directly or indirectly out of the operation of the Store” or the conduct of franchisee employees.
The jury nevertheless found Domino’s sufficiently in control of Robizza’s operations to be vicariously liable and awarded damages exceeding $2.3 million after delay damages were added.
Decision
On appeal, Domino’s argued that the trial court should have granted summary judgment or entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The Superior Court clarified that denials of fact-dependent summary judgment motions are not reviewable after trial, abrogating prior inconsistent precedents such as Windows v. Erie Ins. Exch., 161 A.3d 953 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). The only issue was whether the trial court erred in denying JNOV.
The Court explained that in its view, Pennsylvania precedent examines whether a franchisor had the right to control, or actually exercised control over, the day-to-day conduct of the franchisee. See Cox v. Caeti, 444 Pa. 143, 279 A.2d 756, 758 (1971); Green v. Indep. Oil Co., 414 Pa. 477, 201 A.2d 207, 210 (1964). The Court emphasized that questions of agency are “ordinarily… one of fact for the jury.” Breslin v. Ridarelli, 308 Pa. Super. 179, 454 A.2d 80, 82 (1982); see also Tonsic v. Wagner, 458 Pa. 246, 329 A.2d 497, 501 (1974).
Applying that standard, the Court stated that plaintiffs had introduced evidence which, if believed, suggested Domino’s authority extended beyond product quality. The 2016 operating standards dictated hiring procedures, required specific software platforms for job applications, set rules for driver cash handling, and authorized termination of the franchise for violations. The Court concluded that a jury could view these requirements as leaving Robizza with “practically no discretion” in daily operations. Coryell v. Morris, 330 A.3d 1270, 1282–83 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025).
The Court analogized to Juarbe v. City of Philadelphia, 288 Pa. Super. 330, 431 A.2d 1073, 1078 (1981), where Exxon’s power to dictate service station operations was found sufficient for a jury to consider agency. At the same time, the Court distinguished Myszkowski v. Penn Stroud Hotel, Inc., 430 Pa. Super. 315, 634 A.2d 622, 626–27 (1993), where Best Western’s role was limited to brand quality checks. In the Court’s view, Domino’s role was closer to Juarbe than Myszkowski.
Domino’s urged the Court to follow out-of-state cases rejecting similar claims, including Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, 60 Cal. 4th 474, 333 P.3d 723 (2014) and Lind v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, 37 N.E.3d 1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). The majority declined, citing contrary authority such as Domino’s Pizza, LLC v. Wiederhold, 248 So. 3d 212, 222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018) and Viado v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 230 Or. App. 531, 217 P.3d 199, 207 (2009).
Judge King dissented. He argued that the franchise agreement and operating standards made clear that Robizza retained control over its employees and delivery drivers, that Domino’s involvement was limited to protecting brand consistency, and that the majority’s approach placed Pennsylvania at odds with the weight of national authority. In his view, Domino’s should not have been held vicariously liable.
Looking Forward
What makes Coryell so concerning is that it exposes franchisors to liability for acts no franchisor can realistically control. This case was about a driver making a negligent left-hand turn — an act of individual judgment on the road, not the product of any operating manual. Yet the Superior Court permitted the jury to treat Domino’s brand standards as if they dictated the driver’s conduct.
Consider the implications of that reasoning:
- Standards designed to preserve brand consistency — such as grooming rules, cash-handling policies, and vehicle appearance — were characterized as evidence of operational control. Plaintiffs converted ordinary system protections into supposed proof of day-to-day management.
- There was no connection between Domino’s standards and the accident itself. A franchisor cannot control whether a delivery driver uses due care in traffic, but the Court allowed the verdict to stand as if operational manuals bore on that issue.
- By leaving agency questions to juries, franchisors face unpredictable exposure. Even where contracts disclaim agency and franchisees hire, train, and supervise their own employees, franchisors may still be forced to trial based on allegations that system standards amount to control.
The expansion of vicarious liability in Coryell illustrates how tenuous the line has become between permissible brand protection and allegations of operational control. For franchisors, this ruling serves as a stark reminder: even system safeguards that have nothing to do with a delivery driver’s moment-to-moment conduct can be portrayed as a basis for liability.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com
