When someone gets injured at a Franchise or by one of its employees, can the Franchisor be held liable for a Franchisee’s Negligence?

In a recent Pennsylvania case, a Domino’s pizza franchisor was held liable for a $2.3 million jury verdict in favor of a motorcycle crash victim who was injured by a negligent Domino’s franchisee delivery driver.

This case sheds light on Vicarious Liability and how to successfully sue a Franchisor.

What is Vicarious Liability and Why is it Important?

Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party (Principal) responsible for the negligent actions of another party (Agent), based upon their relationship. Vicarious Liability is important in catastrophic injury cases because suing the alleged Principal can provide the accident victim additional compensation through the insurance coverage or assets of the Principal.

This Vicarious Liability concept is particularly significant in Franchise relationships, where Franchisors typically argue they are not responsible for the day-to-day operations of Franchisees. Franchisors often claim that the lack of control should negate any claim of Vicarious Liability.

However, a recent Pennsylvania Superior Court case, Coryell v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, provides a key example of how a Franchisor can be held liable for injuries caused by a Franchisee’s employee.

What Happened in the Recent Domino’s Pizza Case?

The case arose from a devastating motorcycle accident involving Clarence David Coryell. In July 2016, Steven Morris, a delivery driver for Robizza, Inc., a Domino’s Pizza Franchisee, made a negligent left turn, colliding with Mr. Coryell. The collision resulted in catastrophic injuries, ultimately leading to amputation of Coryell’s leg after multiple surgeries.

Cornell sued not only Morris (Delivery Driver) and Robizza (Franchisee) but also Domino’s Pizza LLC (Franchisor), arguing that Domino’s exercised such significant control over Robizza’s operations that it should be held vicariously liable for the accident. Domino’s, in contrast, claimed that its control over Robizza was limited to protecting its brand and ensuring product consistency, not day-to-day management.

The Legal Battle Over Vicarious Liability

The key question before the Court was whether Domino’s exercised enough control over Robizza to be considered legally responsible for its Franchisee’s negligence.

In Pennsylvania, a Franchisor can be held vicariously liable if it controls the “physical conduct in the performance of the service” of the Franchisee. In simpler terms, if the Franchisor dictates not just the outcome (e.g., high-quality pizza) but also the precise manner in which the Franchisee runs its business (e.g., employee training, delivery procedures, and customer service practices), then it may be responsible for the Franchisee’s actions.

During the trial, evidence showed that Domino’s dictated many aspects of Robizza’s operations beyond brand protection, including:

• Hiring and training procedures: Domino’s required Robizza to follow strict training programs.

• Operational policies: Domino’s set extensive rules on how the store must function, from cleaning schedules to customer service protocols.

• Delivery standards: The jury heard testimony that Domino’s exercised control over how deliveries were made, which was central to the accident at issue.

Ultimately, the jury found that Domino’s had either exercised or had the right to exercise sufficient control over Robizza, making the Franchisor vicariously liable for the crash. The verdict resulted in a judgment of over $2.3 million against Domino’s, Robizza, and the delivery driver.

Why this Domino’s Case Matters to Accident Victims and their Lawyers

For accident victims and Pennsylvania Personal Injury Lawyers, this case highlights an important legal avenue for securing full compensation. Franchisees often operate as small businesses with limited insurance coverage and assets. However, Franchisor’s like Domino’s have significantly greater financial resources and additional insurance policies. If a Franchisor can be held vicariously liable, an injured party has a much better chance of recovering full and fair compensation.

Key Takeaways Regarding Vicarious Liability of Franchisors

• Injury victims and their lawyers should consider whether a Franchisor, not just the Franchisee, can be held responsible for their damages.
• Franchisees should be aware that despite being labeled as independent businesses, the extent of control exerted by the Franchisor may impact liability.
•  Franchisors should ensure that their franchise agreements and operational policies do not overreach into day-to-day management if they wish to avoid vicarious liability. In the alternative, Franchisors should increase their liability insurance coverage to protect their assets from potential claims of Vicarious Liability.

If you have questions about Pennsylvania Personal Injury Claims or how Vicarious Liability might apply, contact Tim Rayne, at 610-840-0124, [email protected] or TimRayneLaw.com for a free consultation.

Winter weather brings beautiful snowfall, but it also comes with the responsibility of keeping sidewalks safe for everyone. In West Chester, Pennsylvania, property owners play a key role in ensuring clear and hazard-free walkways. By staying on top of local snow removal guidelines, you can help prevent accidents and keep your community safe—while also protecting yourself from potential legal concerns.

West Chester’s Snow Removal Rules

According to West Chester’s zoning ordinance, property owners must adhere to strict time limits when clearing snow and ice from their sidewalks:

• Snow Shoveling: You must clear your sidewalk within 24 hours of a storm. The cleared path must be at least three feet wide to allow pedestrians to walk safely.
• Salting and Sanding: Within six hours after a storm, you are required to apply salt, sand, or another de-icing material to prevent ice buildup and ensure safe passage.
• Refreezing Hazard: If melting snow refreezes on your sidewalk (not due to new precipitation), you have only two hours to treat it with salt or sand to reduce the risk of slip and fall accidents.

Why This Matters

Failing to follow these rules can lead to serious injuries from slips and falls, which could make you liable for damages in a premises liability lawsuit. If someone suffers an injury on an icy or unshoveled sidewalk, you could be held responsible for medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages.

Property owners in Pennsylvania have a legal duty of care to keep their premises reasonably safe. If you don’t shovel snow, apply salt, or address refreezing issues, you could face legal action for negligence in a personal injury claim.

Protect Yourself and Others

To reduce liability risks and help keep the community safe, follow these steps:

 Monitor weather conditions—especially after a storm when melting and refreezing can create new hazards.
 Act quickly—don’t wait until the deadline to clear sidewalks, remove snow, and apply salt or sand.
 Use the right materials—rock salt, sand, or ice melt can prevent dangerous conditions and reduce slip and fall injuries.
 Check your property regularly—if refreezing occurs, make sure to reapply de-icing materials within two hours.

By following these regulations, you not only help prevent pedestrian injuries but also shield yourself from potential legal claims. Stay proactive, and you’ll contribute to a safer West Chester community this winter.

Legal Guidance from Personal Injury Lawyer Tim Rayne

If you or someone you know has been injured due to an unsafe sidewalk or a slip and fall accident, personal injury attorney Tim Rayne can help. Tim has years of experience handling premises liability cases, ensuring that injury victims receive fair compensation for their medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages.

Contact Tim Rayne at: 610-840-0124 or [email protected]. Visit www.timraynelaw.com to learn more.

In a landmark 5 to 4 Decision, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Harrington v. Purdue Pharma ruled that allowing the release of the Sackler family as part of the Purdue Bankruptcy was impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code.

This controversial decision invalidates a negotiated global settlement of the thousands of claims of victims of opioid injuries and deaths alleged to have resulted from the misdeeds of the Sackler family and their company, Purdue Pharma, in the marketing and sale of the popular opioid painkiller OxyContin.

Did the Supreme Court make the right or wrong call?

What will happen with the claims now?

Let’s break it down:

What were the claims against Purdue and the Sacklers?

Purdue Pharma was a drug company owned and operated by the Sackler family. In the 1990s, Purdue developed the drug OxyContin, a powerful and addictive opioid painkiller. Purdue and individual members of the Sackler family who ran the company aggressively marketed Oxycontin and downplayed its addictive qualities.

OxyContin became wildly popular and played a central role in the opioid abuse crisis from which millions Americans and their families suffered or died. In 2007, Purdue pled guilty to criminal charges misbranding of OxyContin. Thousands of civil suits followed both by individual victims and their families and by governments alleging harm from the opioid crisis.

It is estimated that the total value of the opioid crisis is $40 trillion, which is seven times the annual spending of the United States government.

What did Purdue and the Sacklers do to try to escape from the claims?

Realizing that the Opioid litigation would eventually lead to their personal financial ruin, the Sackler family began a “milking“ program in which they took a large percentage of Purdue’s revenue out of the company each year and deposited it into overseas accounts and trusts to protect it from the victims and other creditors. It is estimated that the Sacklers milked a total of $11 billion from Purdue.

This milking program eventually drove Purdue Pharma (but not the Sacklers) into Bankruptcy because litigation was mounting and it became clear that Purdue’s assets were worth far less then the value of the victims’ claims.

How is bankruptcy supposed to Work?

Bankruptcy exists in order to allow individuals or companies who are insolvent (debts exceed assets) to receive a discharge of their debts if they offer a “full and fair surrender” of all of their assets.

A Bankruptcy Trustee is appointed to manage the process and the Debtor and its Creditors work out a proposed Plan to be approved by the Trustee and the Court. Once the Plan is approved, the assets are paid out to the Creditors and the insolvent individual or company is discharged/released from all of its debts.

How was the Purdue bankruptcy unique?

The Purdue bankruptcy was unique because in addition to seeking its own discharge from the opioid claims, Purdue also sought the discharge of the Sackler family so that they would be forever released from any past or future opioid claims. In order to justify such a release, the Sackler family agreed to pay about $5 billion(over a decade) into the Purdue Bankruptcy from the $11 billion it had milked from Purdue.

Ultimately, the a majority of the victims agreed to this settlement proposal and the Sackler release. Under the settlement, individual victims would receive between $3500 and $48,000 each depending on the severity of the harm.

The Trustee agreed to approve the proposed settlement which would provide compensation to thousands of victims and their families as well as governmental entities that had made opioid claims and, in exchange, both Purdue and the entire Sackler family would be released from any past or future opioid claims.

Why did the Supreme Court strike down the bankruptcy plan?

In a close vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court Majority ruled that the proposed settlement and discharge of the Sacklers was not allowed under the Bankruptcy Act.

In the end, the reasoning was fairly simple. The Majority held that the Bankruptcy Act does not permit the release of a person or entity other than the Debtor who filed for Bankruptcy without the consent of the Creditor.

In this case, Purdue Pharma filed for Bankruptcy, not the Sacklers. However, the settlement agreement provided for a complete release of Purdue and the Sacklers. Moreover, although the Sacklers had agreed to return monies to the Purdue Bankruptcy to help fund the victims’ settlements, they were only returning a fraction of their assets, about $5 billion of the $11 billion it had milked from Purdue.

Ultimately, the Majority ruled that this non-debtor release was not permitted under the Bankruptcy Act.

What happens to the victims now?

The Opinion of the Justices who dissented to this decision is critical of the basic reasoning of the Majority and laments that this decision will be devastating to the victims of the opioid epidemic.

The dissenting Justices argued that a vast majority of the victims had agreed to the proposed settlement and that the Court striking it down jeopardizes any chance at recovery because the Sacklers have shielded themselves by moving their money overseas and placing it in trusts.

It is certain that the litigation will move forward against both Purdue and the Sacklers and there will likely be more settlement talks that may or may not result in a global settlement. It remains to be seen whether the victims will do better or worse then what was proposed in the Bankruptcy settlement.

Tim’s Thougths

In my opinion, the Supreme Court did the right thing.

Bankruptcy is meant to protect people or companies who relinquish all of their assets to their creditors. It was not designed to release other related people without the creditors’ consent. In this case, the Sacklers tried to piggy back on the Purdue Bankruptcy and be released from all claims without giving up anything close to the entirety of the assets that they had milked from Purdue.

The Sacklers should be held accountable for their wrongful actions and forced to relinquish the vast majority of their assets in the event that they want to be released from liability.

It’s unfortunate that victims must wait and fight for more compensation, but it appears to me that the deal that had been struck was not fair to all concerned.

Tim Rayne is a Pensylvania Personal Injury lawyer with the Chester County law firm MacElree Harvey, Ltd. Tim helps injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from insurance companies. Contact Tim at 610-840-0124 or [email protected] or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.