## Facts

- A Domino’s franchisee, J & B Enterprises, Inc. (doing business as Domino’s Pizza), employed Jeffrey Todd Hoppock as a pizza delivery driver.
- The complaints alleged Hoppock, while delivering pizzas, drove negligently and caused a collision with another vehicle.
- Ralph and Ricky Parker, pedestrians, stopped to assist at the accident scene and alleged they were injured when a third vehicle struck them while they were helping.
- Althea Parker asserted a loss-of-consortium claim.
- The Parkers sued Domino’s Pizza, Inc. (the franchisor), the franchisee, and the driver, alleging Domino’s exercised control over the franchisee’s activities and was vicariously liable under agency or employment theories.
- Domino’s moved for summary judgment, arguing the franchisee and driver were not its agents or employees and relying on the franchise agreement’s independent-contractor language and supporting affidavit evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the franchisee was an independent contractor as a matter of law, or whether genuine issues of material fact existed as to Domino’s right to control the franchisee’s operations sufficient to support an agency or employment relationship.
2. Whether, given the disputed nature of the relationship, Domino’s could be subject to vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of the franchisee’s delivery driver.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment entered for Domino’s and remanded.
- The court held the independent-contractor label in the franchise agreement did not resolve the relationship as a matter of law.
- Evidence from the franchise agreement and operations manual created a genuine dispute about Domino’s retained right to control the means and methods of the franchisee’s work, making agency/independent-contractor status a fact question.

## Legal Principles

- Employment or agency status turns on the nature and extent of the alleged principal’s right to control, not on contractual labels alone.
- The right to control the manner and method of performance supports an agency or employment relationship; control limited to the result to be achieved supports independent-contractor status.
- Where evidence permits competing inferences about the right to control, the agency versus independent-contractor issue is for the fact-finder and is not appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

Because the record supported a reasonable inference that the franchisor retained detailed operational control over the franchisee’s business methods, the agency/independent-contractor characterization could not be decided as a matter of law, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on vicarious-liability theories.


Parker v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 629 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1993)