1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

NOW THIS IS A HIGHER POWERED CASE

In Martinez v Higher Powered Pizza, Inc. , Rafael Martinez was injured by a bicycle deliveryman who was transporting pies for Higher Powered Pizza (HPP), a Papa John's franchisee. [1]

After Martinez filed a personal injury suit against HPP and Papa John's in the New York County Supreme Court, Papa John's moved for summary judgment contending that it could not be held liable for the damages sustained.

Even though Papa John's  submitted a franchise agreement, which demonstrated that the company reserved limited control over HPP's business operations, the Supreme Court concluded that the franchiser's motion was prematurely made and that discovery should continue.

On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed. Since Papa John's didn't oversee the delivery process or the personnel employed by HPP for that purpose, and Martinez had only offered "surmise and conjecture" in opposition to the motion, the appellate court was of the opinion that Papa John's couldn't be kept in the mix (or forced to fork over any dough).

Did the AD1 " taste the difference ," or was it just plain " amore ?"

To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Martinez v Higher Powered Pizza, Inc.



[1] According to its annual report, as of December 31, 2006, there were 3,015 Papa John's restaurants in operation throughout the world; 588 being company-owned and 2,427 franchised establishments.

Categories: