## Facts

- A pizza-delivery driver employed by a franchisee crossed the center line while delivering an order and struck a vehicle, severely injuring passenger Matthew Bruntjen.
- Bruntjen sued the franchisee (Bethalto Pizza, LLC) and the franchisor (Imo’s Franchising, Inc.), alleging both vicarious liability and direct negligence against the franchisor.
- Bruntjen alleged the franchisor set system-wide standards and procedures for franchisees, including requirements affecting delivery-driver hiring, supervision, and safety.
- The driver conceded negligence, and the franchisee admitted responsibility for the driver’s negligence as his employer.
- A jury returned a verdict for Bruntjen and awarded $2,284,500.68 in damages.
- The franchisor unsuccessfully sought dismissal, summary judgment, and a directed verdict on the ground it owed no duty and was not responsible for the driver’s conduct.
- After the verdict, defendants’ post-trial motions (including mistrial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, remittitur, and new trial) were denied.

## Issues

1. Whether the franchisor owed Bruntjen a duty of care and could be held directly and/or vicariously liable for the negligent delivery driving of the franchisee’s employee.
2. Whether alleged errors in jury selection and the allocation of peremptory challenges required a new trial.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying post-trial relief, including JNOV, remittitur, or a new trial on damages.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court upheld submitting the franchisor-duty and agency/vicarious-liability questions to the jury based on evidence of the franchisor’s involvement and control over delivery operations and driver-related standards.
- The court found no reversible error in jury selection where the parties agreed to the peremptory-challenge allocation and defendants did not show that objectionable jurors were seated.
- The court upheld denial of JNOV and damages relief, finding the verdict supported by evidence of severe brain injury and not driven by passion or prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- A franchisor’s contractual characterization of a franchisee as an independent contractor is not dispositive; courts look to actual control over relevant operations.
- A franchisor may owe a duty to third parties when its system-wide policies and controls meaningfully affect safety-related aspects of the franchisee’s conduct.
- Evidence of franchisor control over driver-related standards can support an agency finding and resulting vicarious liability for negligent acts committed in the course of deliveries.
- A party seeking a new trial based on jury-selection error must show prejudice, including that an objectionable juror was seated.
- A damages award will not be reduced or retried absent a showing it is unsupported by the evidence or reflects passion or prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a substantial injury verdict and held that a franchisor may face direct and vicarious liability where evidence shows meaningful control over franchise delivery-driver practices and safety-related standards, and it rejected challenges to jury selection and the damages award.


Bruntjen v. Bethalto Pizza, LLC, 18 N.E.3d 215 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014)