$2.3 Million Verdict Against Domino’s

A Pennsylvania appellate court has upheld a $2.3 million jury award against Domino’s Pizza LLC, finding the company vicariously liable for a severe motorcycle accident involving a franchisee’s delivery driver. The case arose after Steven Morris, a delivery driver employed by Domino’s franchisee Robizza Inc., collided with motorcyclist Clarence David Coryell. The crash left Coryell with devastating leg injuries, necessitating multiple surgeries and ultimately leading to amputation.

A Philadelphia County jury initially awarded Coryell $2.1 million in damages, which was later increased to $2.3 million to account for delay damages. However, in 2023, a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the jury’s verdict, siding with Domino’s argument that it was not responsible for the actions of its independently owned franchise. That ruling was overturned on January 31, 2025, by an en banc panel of the Superior Court, which reinstated the original award.

Appeals Court Rules on Vicarious Liability

Domino’s contended that it should not be held accountable for the negligence of its franchisee, arguing that Robizza Inc. was an independent business responsible for its own operations. However, the en banc panel, in an 8-1 decision, determined that the jury had been correct in finding that Domino’s exercised a level of control over the franchisee’s operations sufficient to establish liability.

Judge Mary Jane Bowes, writing for the majority, emphasized that determining whether a company is vicariously liable is typically a question for the jury. She stated:

"Ordinarily, the question of the existence of a principal-agent or master-servant relationship is one of fact for the jury to determine."

The ruling pointed to evidence that Domino’s imposed strict operational requirements on Robizza, including control over its computer systems and hiring policies. The court found that these extensive regulations left Robizza with little autonomy in running its business, supporting the jury’s conclusion that it functioned as an agent of Domino’s.

Dissenting Opinion Challenges Franchise Control Argument

Judge Megan McCarthy King dissented from the majority’s opinion, arguing that a standard franchise agreement alone does not necessarily create the type of direct control required to establish vicarious liability.

"Daily control of the franchisee’s operations remains necessary for the imposition of vicarious liability,"

She maintained that while Domino’s imposed certain operational standards, those requirements did not equate to direct involvement in Robizza’s daily business decisions, which she argued should be necessary to hold the parent company liable.

Attorneys and Law Firms Involved

Coryell was represented by Neil T. Murray of Sheridan & Murray LLC and Daniel J. Siegel of the Law Offices of Daniel J. Siegel LLC.

Domino’s Pizza was defended by Michael Luongo of Goldberg Segalla LLP and Thomas M. Barton of Coles Barton LLP.

Potential Next Steps for Domino’s

Following this ruling, Domino’s may attempt to appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in hopes of reversing the decision. However, given the appellate court’s strong majority ruling and its detailed analysis of the franchise’s operational structure, successfully challenging the verdict may prove difficult.

This decision could have broader implications for corporate liability in franchise relationships, particularly when a parent company enforces stringent operational controls over its franchisees. Businesses operating under a franchise model may need to reassess their policies to mitigate potential legal risks associated with vicarious liability claims.