PHILADELPHIA - Domino's Pizza has lost its effort to avoid paying its slice of a $2.3 million verdict to a man whose leg was amputated after a traffic accident involving a pizza deliveryman.
Though Domino's merely reached a franchise agreement with Robizza, it first failed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and now the Pennsylvania Superior Court to distance itself from the accident, found to have been caused by a driver for Robizza.
Domino's franchise agreement merely asserted control over the end product - pizza - and didn't involve day-to-day operations at Robizza, the company claimed. The Superior Court disagreed on Jan. 31 in an opinion written by Judge Mary Jane Bowes.
"Domino's used its operating standards to continuously subjugate Robizza to Domino's will as to the minutia of the store's staffing and daily operation far beyond the minimum quality threshold addressed by the product standards," Bowes wrote.
"The franchise agreement specified that, rather than merely pay a yearly fee or buy supplies from the franchisor, Robizza was obligated to pay Domino's a set percentage of Robizza's weekly receipts. Further, Domino's retained the right to require Robizza to give it access to Robizza's bank account to allow Dominos to transfer to itself royalty fees and advertising contributions."
Clarence Coryell was on his motorcycle in July 2016 when the deliveryman, Steven Morris, turned into him. Severe injuries required 10 surgeries but eventually, Coryell lost his leg. He and his wife sued Robizza, Morris and Domino's in 2018.
The franchise agreement gave Domino's so much control over Robizza's operations that it was vicariously liable for his injuries, Coryell alleged. The trial judge agreed that a jury could see it that way, and one did in 2021. The three were hit with a $2.1 million verdict later increased after Domino's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied.
First, a split panel of the Superior Court ruled for Domino's appeal, leading to the Coryells' asking for reargument in front of the entire court. That panel decided against Domino's in the recently issued opinion that drew a dissent from one of its members.
Judge Bowes wrote the franchise agreement and operating standards "left Robizza with practically no discretion how to conduct the day-to-day operations..." The agreements governed areas of operation like employees' fingernail and facial hair length, what jewelry they could where, when the store must be cleaned, methods of acceptable payment by customers and what topics must be covered in employee training, among other mandates.
"Critically, violation of these operating standards observed upon unannounced inspections that Domino's had the right to conduct at any time, subjected Robizza to termination of its franchise," Bowes wrote.
But Judge Megan McCarthy King, the only judge in the nine-member court to dissent, noted the agreement declared Robizza an independent contractor and said Domino's would not be liable for damages arising from the operation of the store or on deliveries.
"While not dispositive, inclusion of this provision is clearly consistent with what the other provisions show, namely, that Robizza had control over the day-to-day operations of the store," King wrote.
Citing decisions in other states in similar cases that favored Domino's, King said the relationship was "contractor-contractee rather than master-servant."