Was Domino’s Liable. Write an one page essay about the paper in the file, is the franchisor ( Domino’s) liable? What factors did the court of appeal cite in its decision?
Was Domino’s Liable
In the case Domino’s Pizza, L.L.C. versus Raghurami B. Reddy, as the Guardian of the Person and the Estate of Devavaram Christopher and the Estate of Ruth Christopher Appeal, the jury ruled that the franchisor (Domino’s) was liable. In 2012, Joshua Balka, a pizza delivery driver caused an accident due to a bald tire and wet pavement. The accident killed Ruth Christopher and injured Devavarum. Balk was an employee of Mac Pizza Management Inc., which is a franchisee of Domino’s Pizza (“Domino’s Pizza, L.L.C. v. Raghurami B. Reddy, as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Devavaram Christopher and of the Estate of Ruth Christopher Appeal from 58th District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)”, 2015). According to the police report, Balka had failed to control his speed and was driving a vehicle with an unsafe tire therefore, Raghurami, the Guardian of Devavaram and Ruth sued MAC and Domino’s for negligence.
The court in its decision cited that Balka was liable for 10% of negligence while MAC and Dominos were liable for 30% and 60% negligence respectively. The court also cited that Domino failed to control the rights to control details of injury-producing acts or omissions of MAC yet it had the right to control. Also the court found Domino’s liable for accident because it failed to exercise ordinary care within its rights (“Domino’s Pizza, L.L.C. v. Raghurami B. Reddy, as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Devavaram Christopher and of the Estate of Ruth Christopher Appeal from 58th District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)”, 2015). Additionally, the pizza delivery guy was driving a faulty vehicle for the benefit of Domino’s as he was selling products of Dominos franchise.
In their defense, Domino’s argued that they had no right to control the daily activities of MAC and therefore did not have exercise control over the injury-producing acts hence were not liable for the accident. Also using the presented evidence, it showed that deliveries are only made to a distance of nine minutes thus Balka was serving the purpose of Dominos when the accident happened (“Domino’s Pizza, L.L.C. v. Raghurami B. Reddy, as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Devavaram Christopher and of the Estate of Ruth Christopher Appeal from 58th District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)”, 2015). He stated that he was driving very fast so that he could deliver the pizzas on time. Moreover, Balka testified that as an employee of MAC, he was expected to follow the rules of Dominos, and wear Domino’s branded clothing hence proving that Domino’s had the right to control the stores daily activities
Reference Domino’s Pizza, L.L.C. v. Raghurami B. Reddy, as Guardian of the Person and Estate of Devavaram Christopher and of the Estate of Ruth Christopher Appeal from 58th District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen). (2015). Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/ninth-court-of-appeals/2015/09-14-00058-cv.html