Posts tagged "1108015"

Lind, et al. v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-080-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   14-P-928                                        Appeals Court   MICHAEL A. LIND, coadministrator,[1] & another[2]  vs.  DOMINO’S PIZZA LLC & another.[3] No. 14-P-928. Hampden.     March 12, 2015. – July 29, 2015.   Present:  Grainger, Meade, & Fecteau, JJ. Practice, Civil, Summary judgment, Change of ruling, Instructions to jury, New trial.  Rules of the Superior Court.  Negligence, Vicarious liability.  Contract, Franchise agreement, Third party beneficiary.  Negligence, Vicarious liability, Duty to prevent harm, Expert opinion.  Evidence, Expert opinion.  Witness, Expert.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 16, 2009.   A motion for summary judgment was heard by Constance M. Sweeney, J., and was reconsidered by Richard J. Carey, J.; the case was tried before him, the entry of separate and final judgment was directed by him, and a motion for a new trial was considered by him.     John J. Egan for the plaintiffs. Paul G. Boylan (Kevin G. Kenneally & John F. Burke, Jr., with him) for the defendants.     FECTEAU, J.  Plaintiffs Michael Lind and Lisa Bishop, coadministrators of the estate of their son, Corey M. Lind (Corey), appeal from separate and final judgments entered in the Superior Court resolving all claims in favor of the defendants Domino’s Pizza LLC and Domino’s Pizza, Inc., in connection with the plaintiffs’ wrongful death action filed pursuant to G. L. c. 229, § 2.[4]  The plaintiffs challenge as error the reconsideration and partial allowance by the judge, on the eve of trial, of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.[5]  The plaintiffs also challenge rulings made by the judge during trial excluding certain testimony and declining to give a particular jury instruction.  Finally, the plaintiffs contend the judge erred in denying their motions for reconsideration and a new trial.  We affirm. Background.  The relevant facts are largely undisputed.   In June, 2003, David Jenks, the president of Springfield Pie, Inc. (Springfield Pie), entered into a “Standard Franchise Agreement” (franchise agreement) with Domino’s Pizza LLC,[6] providing that Springfield Pie, the franchisee, would operate a Domino’s Pizza Store at 624 Boston Road in Springfield (Boston Road store or store).  The franchise agreement generally provided that Springfield Pie would be bound by basic operational standards as set forth by Domino’s, but would otherwise exercise control over the day‑to‑day operations of the store. Springfield Pie hired Corey as a delivery driver in 2007 to work in the Boston Road […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 29, 2015 at 3:39 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,