J-A26040-22

2023 PA Super 232

CLARENCE DAVID CORYELL, AND 

SANDRA CORYELL, H/W

v.

STEVEN MORRIS, JASON DAWSON, 

ROBIZZA, INC., AND DOMINO’S 

PIZZA LLC

APPEAL OF: DOMINO’S PIZZA LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1977 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment Entered September 21, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at 

No(s): 180602732

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KING, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

DISSENTING OPINION BY BOWES, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 8, 2023

I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority both conducts an 

improper review and reaches the wrong ultimate disposition. For the reasons 

that follow, I would affirm the judgment.

First, although the matter sub judice comes to us on appeal from a 

judgment entered upon a verdict reached at a jury trial, the learned majority 

elects to review the propriety of a pretrial motion for summary judgment. As 

this Court recently explained:

This Court has recognized that in cases where “a summary 

judgment motion is based on the sufficiency of the evidence to 

prove the plaintiff’s claims, once a case goes to trial and evidence 

is presented at trial, the denial of summary judgment is moot and 

the sufficiency of the evidence must be analyzed based on the trial 

record.” Xtreme Caged Combat v. Zarro, 247 A.3d 42, 50–51 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A26040-22

- 2 -

(Pa.Super. 2021) (citing Whitaker v. Frankford Hospital of 

City of Philadelphia, 984 A.2d 512, 517 (Pa.Super. 2009)).

In Whitaker, this Court noted that, once the parties 

proceeded to trial, the parties presented evidence, and a verdict 

was entered in the plaintiff’s favor, the defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment became moot and the “issue became whether 

the trial court erred in failing to grant them JNOV.” See also 

Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 184, (2011) (an order denying 

summary judgment “retains its interlocutory character as simply 

a step along the route to final judgment. Once the case proceeds 

to trial, the full record developed in court supersedes the record 

existing at the time of the summary-judgment motion.”) (citation 

omitted).

A recent panel of this Court held in Yoder v. McCarthy 

Constr., Inc., 291 A.3d 1 (Pa.Super. 2023), that “where 

summary judgment is denied and the same claim then proceeds 

to trial, post-trial and appellate review must focus on whether 

[JNOV] is required, not on whether summary judgment or nonsuit 

were improperly denied.” Id. at 13 n.15 (emphasis in original).5

______

5 We recognize that this Court’s precedent has not always 

directly addressed whether a party may appeal the denial of 

a motion for summary judgment after a trial has been held. 

See Windows v. Erie Ins. Exch., 161 A.3d 953, 956-57 

(Pa.Super. 2017) (reaching the merits of a challenge to the 

denial of summary judgment without explanation as to why 

the denial was reviewable); Krepps v. Snyder, 112 A.3d 

1246, 1257-60 (Pa.Super. 2015) (same). This Court has on 

occasion reviewed the merits of challenges to the denial of 

summary judgment after a trial has been held. See 

Brownlee v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 241 A.3d 455, 

2020 WL 6197405, *3-4 (Pa.Super. October 22, 2020) 

(non-precedential decision).

Turnpaugh Chiropractic Health & Wellness Ctr., P.C. v. Erie Ins. Exch., 

297 A.3d 404, 412 (Pa.Super. 2023) (cleaned up). 

Here, Domino’s asserted pretrial that it was entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law because the Coryells had “not produced any evidence or 
J-A26040-22

- 3 -

documents to support the allegations in their Amended Complaint against 

[Domino’s].” Domino’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 3/2/20, at ¶ 44. 

Citing not only the 2006 Franchise Agreement and the 2016 operating 

standards, but also the affidavits and depositions of its employees and the 

franchisee, Domino’s maintained that “the evidence and documents produced 

show that [Domino’s] has never had any right to, nor did it ever participate in 

the hiring, training and/or supervising of the individuals [that Robizza] 

employed,” and thus “[t]he evidence simply does not indicate any liability for 

this motor vehicle accident on the part of [Domino’s].” Id. at 47- 48.

Hence, Domino’s moved for summary judgment on the basis that the 

Coryells failed to produce sufficient evidence to support their claim of the 

vicarious liability of Domino’s, and, after the motion was denied, the case 

proceeded to trial on the same claim raised in the summary judgment motion. 

Pursuant to Whitaker, Xtreme, Yoder, and Turnpaugh, this Court’s duty 

on appeal is to examine the trial evidence to determine whether Domino’s was 

entitled to JNOV, not to review the pretrial denial of summary judgment upon 

the then-extant record. 

The majority opts to rely upon Windows, Krepps, and the nonprecedential decision in Brownlee to address the prior denial of summary 

judgment rather than the countervailing authority of Whitaker, Xtreme, 

Yoder, and Turnpaugh. I would follow the latter, more recent cases as 

presenting the sounder approach, as it is in accord with well-settled law on 
J-A26040-22

- 4 -

the analogous challenges to evidentiary sufficiency in criminal cases.

1

 

Accord, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lee, 662 A.2d 645, 650 (Pa. 1995) 

(holding subsequent conviction at trial rendered moot challenge to denial of 

pretrial motion for habeas corpus relief on the basis that the Commonwealth 

failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case); 

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 596 A.2d 222, 225 (Pa.Super. 1991) (observing 

that, to obtain appellate review of the denial of a pretrial challenge to the 

sufficiency of the evidence to warrant a trial, the defendant must immediately 

petition for an interlocutory appeal by permission, as the issue is mooted by 

the subsequent proffer of sufficient evidence at trial). 

If Domino’s wished to seek appellate review of the denial of its motion 

for summary judgment before trial, it could have sought permission to file an 

interlocutory appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b). See Turnpaugh, 

supra at 412 (Pa.Super. 2023). By electing to instead proceed to trial, 

Domino’s allowed the pretrial sufficiency challenge to become moot. However, 

it properly preserved the issue of whether the facts of this case as established 

____________________________________________

1 While my perspective aligns with that of Whitaker, Xtreme, Yoder, and 

Turnpaugh, I concede that our jurisprudence has been inconsistent. 

Accordingly, the resolution of the issue by an en banc panel of this Court would 

ease the lingering confusion among the bench and bar. Considering our 

omnipresent effort to find consistency in the law, I believe that it is time for 

this Court to resolve this dissonance so that all similarly-situated litigants are 

treated the same. 
J-A26040-22

- 5 -

at trial were sufficient to give rise to vicarious liability by raising the claim in 

its motion for JNOV. 

I find the majority’s insistence upon reviewing the summary judgment 

determination under these circumstances perplexing due to the complete lack 

of necessity for it given the framework the majority opts to employ. The 

majority opines that this case presents a purely legal question because the 

evidence whose sufficiency is at issue consists only of the parties’ written 

agreements, and not any disputed facts established through testimony or 

other documents. The majority further expressly acknowledges that same 

standard of review applies to denial of summary judgment or JNOV when a 

pure question of law is presented. See Majority Opinion at 15. Consequently, 

the majority’s pronouncements on the post-trial reviewability of summary 

judgment amount to mere dicta. In my view, this gratuitous furthermuddying of already-murky waters is as injudicious as it is unwarranted.2

Were the majority correct that we faced a purely legal issue in this case, 

the prevailing reason for precluding post-verdict review of the denial of a 

motion for summary judgment, i.e., the preeminence of the trial record, would 

____________________________________________

2 The majority goes so far as to suggest that it would be unfair not to review 

the summary judgment motion in this case because there was some precedent 

upon which the parties could have selectively relied in deciding to proceed to 

trial rather than pursuing a permissive interlocutory appeal. See Majority 

Opinion at 13. I find this contention both baseless, since no right to review 

was lost here, and ill-advised, insofar as it encourages litigants to ignore 

countervailing precedent, of which there was plenty in this case, and to argue 

that this Court is somehow thereby estopped to apply it. 
J-A26040-22

- 6 -

be diminished significantly. However, I disagree with the majority’s holding 

on this front as well. In my view, the nature of the parties’ relationship is a 

mixed question of law and fact which, in this instance, was properly submitted 

to the jury.

When the determination of whether a legal threshold or definition has 

been met varies from case to case, with the answer depending upon the 

particular set of facts involved, then the issue is a mixed question of law and 

fact. See, e.g., J.S. by M.S. v. Manheim Twp. Sch. Dist., 263 A.3d 295, 

305 n.11 (Pa. 2021) (noting whether a statement constitutes a punishable 

true threat is a mixed question of law and fact); Messina v. E. Penn Twp., 

62 A.3d 363, 366 (Pa. 2012) (observing that issue of whether an ordinance 

was invalid based upon failure to readvertise after changes were made to a 

zoning map presented mixed questions of law and fact); Gentex Corp. v. 

W.C.A.B. (Morack), 23 A.3d 528, 534 (Pa. 2011) (concluding that question 

of adequate notice presented a mixed question of law and fact and, “[a]s this 

issue is significantly fact driven, great deference is to be given to the lower 

tribunal’s determinations”); Commonwealth v. Crawley, 924 A.2d 612, 

615–16 (Pa. 2007) (holding that whether a petitioner fit the definition of 

“mental retardation” was a fact-intensive mixed question of law and fact). 

The standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact “must be 

evaluated on an issue-by-issue basis” because “some mixed questions are 

more heavily weighted toward fact, while others are more heavily weighted 
J-A26040-22

- 7 -

towards law.” Id. at 615. “The more fact intensive a determination is, the 

more deference a reviewing court should give the conclusion below.” Id. at 

615-16. 

The issue before us is whether Domino’s was properly determined to be 

vicariously liable for the negligence of its franchisee’s employee. As our 

Supreme Court has explained:

Vicarious liability, sometimes referred to as imputed negligence, 

means in its simplest form that, by reason of some relation 

existing between A and B, the negligence of A is to be charged 

against B although B has played no part in it, has done nothing 

whatever to aid or encourage it, or indeed has done all that he 

possibly can to prevent it. Once the requisite relationship (i.e., 

employment, agency) is demonstrated, the innocent victim has 

recourse against the principal, even if the ultimately responsible

agent is unavailable or lacks the ability to pay.

Green v. Pennsylvania Hosp., 123 A.3d 310, 316 (Pa. 2015) (cleaned up). 

In determining whether the relationship between two parties triggers 

vicarious liability, the focus is on the control that the purported principal has 

over the purported agent “with respect to his physical conduct in the 

performance of the services for which he was engaged[.]” Cox v. Caeti, 279 

A.2d 756, 758 (Pa. 1971). 

The hallmark of an employee-employer relationship is that the 

employer not only controls the result of the work but has the right 

to direct the manner in which the work shall be accomplished; the 

hallmark of an independent contractee-contractor relationship is 

that the person engaged in the work has the exclusive control of 

the manner of performing it, being responsible only for the 

result[.]
J-A26040-22

- 8 -

Green v. Indep. Oil Co., 201 A.2d 207, 210 (Pa. 1964). Phrased differently, 

“[a] servant is an agent whose physical conduct in the performance of the 

service is controlled or is subject to the right of control by the master; that is, 

a master controls not only the results of the work, but the manner in which 

the work is to be performed.” Juarbe v. City of Philadelphia, 431 A.2d 

1073, 1076 (Pa.Super. 1981). “It is the element of continuous subjection

to the will of the principal which distinguishes the agency agreement from 

other agreements.” Myszkowski v. Penn Stroud Hotel, Inc., 634 A.2d 

622, 626 (Pa.Super. 1993) (cleaned up, emphasis in original). 

In the context of a franchisor-franchisee relationship, the question of 

the agency is answered by examining “whether the alleged master has dayto-day control over the manner of the alleged servant’s performance.” Id. If 

an agreement gives the principal the right to control the agent’s day-to-day 

performance, then it matters not whether the principal actually exercised that 

right. See Coleman v. Bd. of Ed. of Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 383 A.2d 

1275, 1279 (Pa. 1978) (“The test is thus framed in terms of the right and 

power to exercise such control, not in terms of whether the right and power 

were actually exercised or whether they were delegated to another.”). 

However, evidence of actual control exerted by the principal outside of the 

parties’ agency agreement may also establish a level of control that gives rise 

to vicarious liability. See George v. Nemeth, 233 A.2d 231, 233 (Pa. 1967) 

(“Although the Distribution Agreement signed by Nemeth and Freihofer 
J-A26040-22

- 9 -

specifically refers to their relationship as being one of an independent 

contractor, this is not determinative of the matter for it is the actual practice 

between the parties which is crucial.”).3 

The above case law manifestly indicates that whether Domino’s exerted 

sufficient control over Robizza to render it vicariously liable for the Coryells’

damages is a mixed question of law and fact. Indeed, I posit that the nature 

of the relationship between Robizza and Domino’s is such a fact-intensive 

inquiry that we are bound to give great deference to the decision below. See

Crawley, supra at 615–16. Further, it is well-settled that “[i]f the facts as 

to such relationship are in dispute, it is the function of a jury to determine 

the precise nature of the relationship between the parties[.]” Cox, 

supra at 758 (emphasis added) (citing Feller v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 

70 A.2d 299, 300 (Pa. 1950)). See also Juarbe, supra at 1076 (same). It 

____________________________________________

3 At times, the majority acknowledges that the issue in the case sub judice is 

what the actual relationship was between Domino’s and Robizza, not how the 

Franchise Agreement chose to characterize it. See Majority Opinion at 25, 

30. Yet the majority also suggests that our task is to determine whether the 

Franchise Agreement unambiguously calls for a finding of vicarious liability, as 

if we were deciding the parties’ rights and obligations to each other pursuant 

to their contract. Id. at 14-16. There is no question here that the Franchise 

Agreement plainly states that the parties intended for Robizza to be an 

independent contractor. However, while the parties could agree to indemnify 

each other for third-party claims, their agreement has no bearing upon the 

Coryells’ ability to hold Domino’s vicariously liable for Robizza’s negligence if

Domino’s, in fact, had sufficient control over Robizza through its rights under 

the agreement, its various operating standards, and its actual practices to 

establish an agency relationship. Hence, the lack of contractual ambiguity as 

to the parties’ characterization of their relationship is a red herring. 
J-A26040-22

- 10 -

is only “where the facts are not in dispute, [that] the question of the 

relationship becomes one for determination by the court[.]” Cox, supra at 

758.

Having a jury determine the existence of vicarious liability is hardly a 

rarity. Quite the opposite, “[o]rdinarily, the question of the existence of a 

principal-agent or master-servant relationship is one of fact for the jury to 

determine.” Breslin by Breslin v. Ridarelli, 454 A.2d 80, 82 (Pa.Super. 

1982) (emphasis added). Pennsylvania Courts have long and oft approved 

submitting to the jury the question of the existence of a master-servant or 

principal-agent relationship. See, e.g., Tonsic v. Wagner, 329 A.2d 497, 

501 (Pa. 1974) (holding question of whether a hospital, in addition to 

operating surgeon, was liable as a master for the negligence of its personnel 

during an operation involved “issues of fact which should have been submitted 

to the jury with proper instructions”); Brown v. Shirks Motor Exp., 143 A.2d 

374, 379 (Pa. 1958) (holding trial court properly assigned to the jury the 

question of whether tortfeasor was working in the course and scope of his 

employment with his employer at the time of his negligence or he had been 

under control of a different master); Kissell v. Motor Age Transit Lines, 53 

A.2d 593, 596 (Pa. 1947) (same); Rosen v. Diesinger, 158 A. 561, 562 (Pa. 

1932) (same); Consol. Rail Corp. v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 182 A.3d 

1011, 1027 (Pa.Super. 2018) (reversing grant of summary judgment because 

whether a principal-agent relationship existed presented a jury question); 
J-A26040-22

- 11 -

Lynn v. Cepurneek, 508 A.2d 308, 316 (Pa.Super. 1986) (quoting Dunmire 

v. Fitzgerald, 37 A.2d 596, 599 (Pa. 1944)) (“Where, as here, it is not 

entirely clear who was the controlling master and different inferences in that 

regard can fairly be drawn from the evidence, it is for the jury, not the court, 

to determine agency.” (cleaned up); Simmons v. St. Clair Mem’l Hosp., 

481 A.2d 870, 874 (Pa.Super. 1984) (holding trial court erred in not permitting 

the jury to determine the relationship between the parties for, while the 

evidence of agency “may have been tenuous,” there was a factual dispute for 

the jury). 

I submit that the trial court in the instant case properly tasked the jury 

with deciding whether Domino’s had de facto or de jure control over Robizza 

such that Robizza was the agent of Domino’s for purposes of vicarious liability. 

Indeed, a review of Domino’s motion for JNOV and the Coryells’ response 

readily reveals the conflicting facts presented at trial.

In arguing that it was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the jury’s 

contrary verdict, Domino’s contended that the evidence at trial was not 

“sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict . . . finding that Domino’s, as a 

franchisor, is vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of the employees of 

its franchisee, Robizza[.]” Motion for Post-Trial Relief, 8/23/21, at 2. 

Asserting that there was no proof that Domino’s had a right to control, or 

actually exercised control over, the day-to-day operations of the franchise, 

Domino’s cited the Franchise Agreement; the trial testimony of Jason Dawson, 
J-A26040-22

- 12 -

who owned franchisee Robizza; the trial testimony of Jason Devereaux, 

Domino’s director of franchise services; and the video deposition of January 

Shook, the Domino’s area leader responsible for enforcing the Franchise 

Agreement with Robizza. 

Domino’s highlighted provisions of the Franchise Agreement that: (1) 

placed sole responsibility for training employees; (2) indicated no 

modifications to operating standards would alter the franchisee’s status under 

the agreement; (3) stipulated that the franchisee must directly supervise the 

store; and (4) identified the parties as independent contractors. Id. at 10 

(citing, inter alia, Franchise Agreement, 8/15/06, at ¶¶ 10.2, 15.4, 15.6, 

22.8). Regarding that last point, ¶ 22.8 of the Franchise Agreement defined 

the parties’ relationship as follows:

The parties to this Agreement are independent contractors and no 

training, assistance or supervision which we may give or offer to 

you shall be deemed to negate such independence or create a 

legal duty on our part. We shall not be liable for any damages to 

any person or property arising directly or indirectly out of the 

operation of the Store, including but not limited to those damages 

which may occur while your employees are making or returning 

from making deliveries, or arising out of your delivery service 

policies. Nor shall we have any liability for any taxes levied upon 

you, your business, or the Store. The parties further acknowledge 

and agree the relationship created by this Agreement and the 

relationship between us is not a fiduciary relationship nor one of 

principal and agent. Furthermore, we have no relationship with 

your employees and have no rights, duties, or responsibilities with 

regard to their employment by you. You acknowledge and agree 

that you do not have the authority to act for or on behalf of us or 

to contractually bind us to any agreement. No party to this 

Agreement shall have any authority to assume any liability for the 

acts of the other, or to alter the legal relationships of the

other. . . .
J-A26040-22

- 13 -

Franchise Agreement, 8/15/06, at ¶ 22.8.

Domino’s further cited Mr. Dawson’s testimony that he “at all times 

solely owned Robizza and operated it ‘as an independent business[;]’” that 

“Robizza leased the premises and paid all of its own bills, expenses, and 

taxes[;]” and that all of the food was “made from ingredients owned by 

Robizza in equipment that Robizza owned and [was] sold at prices set by 

Robizza directly to its customers.” Motion for Post-Trial Relief, 8/23/21, at 6 

(quoting N.T. Trial, 8/4/21(AM), at 71, 82-88, 97-100). Domino’s also relied 

upon Ms. Shook’s testimony in asserting that Domino’s never had an employee 

working at the store, that “Mr. Dawson exclusively recruited, hired, trained, 

scheduled, supervised, and paid all of Robizza’s employees” because Robizza 

was solely responsible for those matters, and that “Domino’s was only present 

in the Robizza store three to five times a year for approximately an hour at a 

time for a quality review of Robizza’s operations.” Id. at 6-7 (citing 

Videotaped Deposition of January Shook, 7/27/21, at 72, 86-103). Domino’s 

additionally highlighted Mr. Devereaux’s testimony contrasting the operation 

of Robizza’s store from those owned by Domino’s. In particular, Mr. 

Devereaux indicated that all of the employees, including drivers, in corporateowned stores are directly hired, trained, and supervised by Domino’s. Id. at 

7 (citing N.T. Trial, 8/5/21(AM), at 43-44).

In their response to Domino’s motion for JNOV, the Coryells pointed to 

testimony from these same witnesses suggesting that, despite all the 
J-A26040-22

- 14 -

declarations of Robizza’s independence, Domino’s had the right to, and did, 

dictate not just the results that Robizza produced, but also the precise manner 

in which Robizza achieved them. For example, Mr. Dawson and Ms. Shook 

both testified that Domino’s had the right pursuant to the Franchise 

Agreement to set standards that Robizza was mandated to follow. See Brief 

in Opposition to Post-Trial Motion, 9/13/21, at 14 (citing N.T. Trial, 

8/4/21(AM), at 50-51; Videotaped Deposition of January Shook, 7/27/21, at 

24-25). Mr. Devereaux testified that Domino’s exercised its contractual right 

by adopting not only product standards to ensure the quality of food 

associated with the Domino’s brand, but operating standards that mandated 

how Robizza would operate its store. Id. at 14-15, 22 (citing N.T. Trial, 

8/5/21(AM), at 9-16). These standards could be changed by Domino’s at any 

time, without Robizza’s approval, to dictate Robizza’s operations. Id. (citing 

N.T. Trial, 8/5/21(AM), at 13-14). Specifically, Domino’s issued operating 

standards in July 2016, nearly ten years after the parties entered into the 

Franchise Agreement, that Robizza was required to abide by. Id. (citing N.T. 

Trial, 8/5/21(AM), at 13; Videotaped Deposition of January Shook, 7/27/21, 

at 8). Mr. Dawson testified that these standards governed the day-to-day 

operations of the Robizza store. Id. at 21 (citing N.T. Trial, 8/4/21(AM), at 

99).

Along with this testimony, the Coryells introduced the fifty-page 2016 

operating standards. This document provided rules governing such extensive 
J-A26040-22

- 15 -

areas of operation as how long employees’ fingernails and facial hair could be; 

the size and amount of employees’ jewelry; when the store must be cleaned 

and what types of supplies were permitted; methods of acceptable payment 

by customers; what topics must be covered in employee training; how much 

cash, including personal funds, driver were permitted to carry in the delivery 

vehicles; and that drivers not carry mace or other types of personal protection 

in the delivery vehicles. Id. at 17-20.

I posit that the above demonstrates that there was conflicting evidence 

of the nature of Robizza’s relationship with Domino’s such that it was for the 

jury to evaluate that evidence and decide, upon applying the trial court’s 

instructions as to the law, whether Domino’s actually exerted, or had the 

authority to exert, control over the day-to-day operations of the Robizza 

Domino’s store to make Domino’s vicariously liable for the negligence of a 

Robizza employee. 

Moreover, even if the trial court did err in allowing the jury to resolve a 

question of law in reaching its verdict, the error was plainly harmless, as the 

trial court in its opinion expressed its wholehearted agreement with the jury’s 

conclusion. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/18/22, at 11 (concluding that “there 

was overwhelming evidence” that Robizza was not “free to operate under the 

agreement in any way other than in a master/servant relationship”). See 

also Schneider v. Girard Tr. Bank, 218 A.2d 259, 260 (Pa. 1966) (“If this 

be error, it is harmless error since the lower court, in its opinion for the court 
J-A26040-22

- 16 -

en banc, indicated that had it chosen to resolve the ambiguity presented by 

the agreements its decision would have been the same as that of the jury.”).

Turning to the question of whether Domino’s was entitled to judgment 

notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, I observe that the following standard of 

review pertains:

[W]e review the denial of a request for JNOV for an error of law 

that controlled the outcome of the case or an abuse of discretion. 

In this context, an abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court 

renders a judgment that is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary or 

capricious; that fails to apply the law; or that is motivated by 

partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.

When reviewing the denial of a request for JNOV, the appellate 

court examines the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

verdict winner. Thus, the grant of JNOV should only be entered 

in a clear case.

There are two bases upon which a movant is entitled to JNOV: 

one, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and/or 

two, the evidence was such that no two reasonable minds could 

disagree that the outcome should have been rendered in favor of 

the movant. When an appellant challenges a jury’s verdict on this 

latter basis, we will grant relief only when the jury’s verdict is so 

contrary to the evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice.

Turnpaugh, supra at 413 (cleaned up). 

My review of the record reveals the jury’s verdict to be contrary to 

neither to the law nor the evidence. Rather, I agree with the amicus curiae

Pennsylvania Association for Justice that “[i]t is difficult to imagine how 

Domino’s” is able to assert that there was “no evidence in the record that 

Domino’s exercised actual control over the daily operations of Robizza’s 

business” unless Domino’s believes that actual control “means having a person 
J-A26040-22

- 17 -

from Domino’s corporate offices physically present in the store telling 

everyone to do at every moment.”4 Brief of Amicus Curiae at 23 (quoting 

Domino’s brief at 18). 

The Domino’s Franchise Agreement and operating standards left Robizza 

with practically no discretion how to conduct the day-to-day operations of its 

franchise store. In addition to the mandates discussed above, Domino’s also: 

(1) specified the terms of the store’s lease and site plan, with the right to 

order refurbishment, and the operating hours of the store; (2) commanded 

the use of a specific IBM, Inc. platform for accepting and processing 

employment applications; (3) forbade the hiring of employees who had tattoos 

or “unprofessional” body modifications that could not be covered while 

detailing the colors and style of clothes employees could wear and when they 

could and could not wear them; (5) specified a list of acceptable computer 

and server models and processing speeds; (6) obligated the franchisee to 

maintain records of weekly or monthly sales, bank deposits, cancelled checks, 

and statements, receipts for food purchased, counts of types of pizzas sold; 

(7) outlawed the promotion of free delivery; required the use of approved 

____________________________________________

4 The amicus observes that “[t]here is reason to believe [that] this is exactly 

what Domino’s means,” as Domino’s argues as follows: “A representative of 

Domino’s was present in the store only about five hours per year to observe 

(but not to direct) Robizza’s operations. Those circumstances hardly 

constitute daily operational control that ‘continuously subjugated’ Robizza to 

the will of Domino’s.” Brief of Amicus Curiae at 23 n.1 (quoting Domino’s brief 

at 26).
J-A26040-22

- 18 -

types of a safe in the store and the deposit therein of anything more than 

$150 that could be kept in the cash registers; (8) preluded the use of delivery 

vehicles with “excessive” wear and tear or debris; (9) mandated that the store 

feature at least three telephones and digital clocks viewable from various 

areas of the store; (10) banned the presence of gaming machines or any form 

of literature not related to work; and (11) required employees to deal with 

complaining customers by “apologiz[ing], giv[ing] them what they want, [and] 

giv[ing] them something extra.” See Domino’s Pizza Operating Standards, 

7/16. 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. See Franchise Agreement, 

8/15/06, at ¶ 18.2.2. 

To me, it is plain that this is not a franchisor-franchisee relationship like 

the one at issue in Myszkowski, where the franchisee paid Best Western a 

flat fee to use the trademark, contributed to advertising, and was otherwise 

free to operate the hotel as they saw fit so long as it did not fall below 

minimum quality standards. See Myszkowski, supra at 626-27. Nor did 

Robizza have the type of day-to-day control as the franchisee in Green v. 

Independent Oil Co. who was obligated to purchase all fuel and oil from the 

franchisor, but was permitted to sell other wares of his choosing, keep all 

profits, and handle all matters of employing store workers. See Green v. 

Indep. Oil Co., supra at 210.
J-A26040-22

- 19 -

As detailed above, 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. 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. See Franchise Agreement, 8/15/06, at ¶ 6.1. Further, Domino’s 

retained the right to require Robizza to give it access to Robizza’s bank 

account to allow Domino’s to transfer to itself royalty fees and advertising 

contributions. Id. at ¶ 6.4. 

Consequently, the instant relationship is far more akin to that at issue 

in Juarbe, in which this Court held the trial court erred in granting judgment 

as a matter of law to the franchisor. We required the case to be submitted to 

the jury to determine vicarious liability based upon the following:

[I]t cannot be said that a clear co-equal independent contractor 

relationship exists where there is evidence that one party can: 

randomly inspect the other’s operation; compel him to keep it neat 

and orderly; control his hours of operation; control the type and 

appearance of clothing worn by him and his employees; require 

him to adjust customer grievances; set the prices he must charge; 

specify the quantity and quality of products he must dispense but 

yet have sole discretion on delivery and allocation of such 

products; prohibit him from posting unauthorized signs; and 

compel him not to sell products of a competitor. When such 

powers are maintained under the threat of a termination of the 

operator’s lease and business at the end of a brief term, Exxon’s 

exercise of substantial control is evident.

Juarbe, supra at 1078. 
J-A26040-22

- 20 -

In sum, it is readily apparent to me that the judgment entered upon the 

jury’s verdict in this case is sound. Domino’s control over Robizza was 

sufficiently robust and extensive to deem Robizza its servant or agent for 

purposes of vicarious liability for the negligence of Robizza’s employee.5 

Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of Domino’s motion for JNOV, 

and so must respectfully dissent.

____________________________________________

5 The majority notes that its finding that Domono’s did not exert sufficient 

control to establish an agency relationship with its franchisee is in accord with 

decisions in other states. See Majority Opinion at 45-46 n.16 (collecting 

cases). I am similarly able to offer authority from other jurisdictions in support 

of my position that Domino’s did establish a principal-agent relationship 

through its pervasive control over the franchisee. See Domino’s Pizza, LLC 

v. Wiederhold, 248 So.3d 212, 222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018) (affirming 

jury’s finding that Domino’s exerted sufficient control to be vicariously liable 

for the delivery driver’s accident and declining Domino’s “invitation for this 

Court to reweigh the evidence or recharacterize its control as being limited to 

brand maintenance activities”). See also Viado v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 

217 P.3d 199, 207 (Or. App. 2009) (holding a reasonable jury could conclude 

that “Domino’s exercised sufficient control over [its franchisee] to establish an 

agency relationship,” although ultimately the court ruled that vicarious liability 

did not follow based upon the specific-instrumentalities paradigm that the 

majority acknowledges is not the law in Pennsylvania).