Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, Domino's Pizza, Inc. challenges the trial court's denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial following a negligence lawsuit brought by an employee injured during a store robbery. The jury awarded the employee $400,000, reduced by 25% for comparative fault, resulting in a $300,000 verdict. On appeal, Domino's contested the trial court's rulings on several grounds, including the scope of its duty under the voluntary-undertaking theory of liability, the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, and the limitation placed on its own expert's testimony under Rule 220. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, holding that Domino's assumed a broader duty of care through its comprehensive security program, and the jury was justified in finding the defendant negligent in this context. The court also upheld the admission of the plaintiff's expert testimony and the restriction on the defendant's expert testimony due to non-disclosure. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's counsel's closing remarks, though improper, did not warrant a mistrial as they did not unduly influence the jury's decision, which already reflected a deduction for comparative fault. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, maintaining the jury's award to the plaintiff.
Legal Issues Addressed
Denial of Motion for Mistrialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the plaintiff's counsel's closing remarks, though improper, did not unduly prejudice the jury, supporting the denial of a mistrial motion.
Reasoning: Although deemed improper, the court found the comment was not so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial, especially since the jury had reduced the plaintiff's award by $100,000 for comparative fault.
Duty of Care in Security Measuressubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that Domino's duty extended beyond merely supplying time-delay safes, as the defendant had undertaken broader security measures that required reasonable care in implementation.
Reasoning: These actions illustrate that the defendant's efforts extended beyond merely supplying time-delay safes; they created a comprehensive security program to protect against robberies and enhance employee safety.
Expert Testimony Admissibilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the admission of the plaintiff's expert testimony, finding no abuse of discretion despite the defendant's challenge to the expert's qualifications and reliance on hearsay.
Reasoning: The trial court did not err in allowing Hayes' testimony despite the defendant's claim that it was based on hearsay from the robber's cellmate.
Limitation of Expert Testimony under Rule 220subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court limited the defendant's expert testimony to align with disclosed opinions, barring testimony beyond the scope of Rule 220 disclosures.
Reasoning: The court ruled that Dr. Sherman’s opinions regarding the robber's intoxication were beyond the scope of the Rule 220 disclosure, thus barring that testimony.
Voluntary Undertaking Theory of Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Domino's Pizza, Inc. had a broader responsibility in establishing a security program to deter robberies and protect employees, and the jury could determine if the defendant acted negligently within that scope.
Reasoning: The defendant initiated a security program aimed at deterring robbery and safeguarding employees. This program included the establishment of a protective services department, which developed safety materials and robbery prevention literature for all stores.