Dominos: Just because it has our name plastered on it doesn't mean its us

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

A Domino's delivery driver was involved in a fatal accident. The family of the victims sued and won a $32 Million judgement. Domino's disagrees with the judgement and plans to appeal. Here is their statement:

First, our hearts go out to all involved in this tragedy. This was a terrible accident. What’s difficult to comprehend is the idea that a corporation is responsible for whether an independent franchise employee is driving on bald tires. The employee is in question did not work for us; he worked for an established independent franchise operation. Franchisors do not control the day-to-day operations of franchisees, especially to that minute level of detail. We are saddened by this tragedy, but do intend to appeal the decision.

Think of Subway restaurants. It might say somewhere, in tiny print, that the place is a franchise operation, but all you are going to see is the big blazing signage that says “SUBWAY” and if you have a problem there who are you going to complain about? Not some random franchisee, but Subway.

I had a similar experience when I worked for an “authorized retailer” for a major wireless provider. We had the providers name and logo blazed across the front of the store but not one indication whatsoever that we were not actually owned by that provider. People got mad about that when they realized how limited we actually were and how we weren’t being totally upfront about our operation.

It’s the same thing with contractors. Say a Comcast contractor, with the Comcast logo blazed across their van gets in an accident or runs down a dog? Immediately Comcast is like: “Oh well, it wasn’t ACTUALLY our fault, it was the contractors fault. We will take appropriate disciplinary action against them.”

At what point do the lines become too blurred? It shouldn't require reading every bit of fine print everywhere to figure out exactly what company you are dealing with.

[crashhelmet]

I'm siding with Domino's on this. They should not be held liable for any damages. The Franchise Agreement they have with their franchiseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees (sp?) does not make them responsible for the employees hired, their job performance, or the vehicles used for delivery.

If this was a corporate owned store with corporate owned and provided vehicles, where the corporation was responsible for maintaining them, then I'd say they were at fault. But they're not, so they can't be held liable.

If anyone should be held liable, it's the driver and their insurance policy. But I'm sure the insurance provider would cite faulty maintenance and decline to cover it.

This is how bullshit laws and company rules come to be. If Domino's loses their appeal, there will be a new rule, or set of rules, governing the use of personal vehicles, driver requirements, and such that ends up hurting the employees.

[Andara Bledin]

The problem is that you can't really say that the chain stops at the franchise owner. Because even if there is an owner that is distinct from the actual chain, there's a good chance that said chain has a regional manager that inspects the independent franchises to ensure that they are operating at a level sufficient to fulfill their obligations to not tarnish the company name. So does that mean that the manager is responsible, but his bosses aren't?

Unfortunately, since they allow the franchisee to use their marque and then profit off of that use, they absolutely do open themselves up to certain liabilities.

[mikoyan29]

to me it sounds like Dominos wants to have it both ways. They use franchises instead of corporate stores to shed some of their costs. When something happens because of said franchise, they want to wash their hands of the issue. It seems to me that there should be some sort of minimum standards that they hold their franchises to.

That being said, if one of their requirements is that vehicles used to deliver the pizza are in safe, working condition, their hands are clean in this matter, I would think.

[Ladeeda]

Did the car belong to the franchise or to the driver? If it's the usual setup [driver using their own car and reimbursed], then the driver alone is liable, since the driver is responsible for the maintenance of the car and their own driving. If the company--franchise or corporate-- owns the delivery cars, then yeah, they're responsible for the upkeep. But then the liability should fall on whichever owns the vehicles.

For a franchise, the franchisee.

[Andara Bledin]

Did the car belong to the franchise or to the driver? If it's the usual setup [driver using their own car and reimbursed], then the driver alone is liable, since the driver is responsible for the maintenance of the car and their own driving.

If the car is being used on company time for company purposes, it is, legally speaking, a company asset during that time, just like the employee driving it.

[Ladeeda]

Doesn't mean the company is responsible for the maintenance, since they don't own the car.

They reimburse the driver for wear and gas, making it the driver's responsibility.

[wolfie]

Never delivered pizza, but I am an owner-operator trucker running under a carrier's operating authority. Carriers generally do things one of 2 ways - either requiring a DOT annual inspection at your own mechanic more frequently than the law requires (first carrier required every 6 months for trucks under 5 years, every 4 months for trucks 5 years and older), or have their own mechanic inspect the truck on a routine basis (current carrier does this - inspection every 3 months). In either case, you don't get further dispatches until you get the inspection.

The corporate offices COULD require that their franchises do something similar with delivery vehicles - and it's a close enough parallel that the plaintiff's lawyer can make the point that by NOT doing it, the chain is failing to carry out due dilligence.

[Nekojin]

Doesn't mean the company is responsible for the maintenance, since they don't own the car.

They reimburse the driver for wear and gas, making it the driver's responsibility.

Having been a pizza driver, I can say categorically that no, they don't "reimburse" the driver for wear and gas. They give a per-trip "travel bonus," but it's the same amount regardless of whether you went one block over or 5 miles across town. And while it's probably more than enough to cover the gas used by the driver, it's nowhere near enough to cover wear and tear on the average car.

Show me a pizza company that does actual reimbursement (allows employees to submit repair and maintenance receipts, and have them repaid), and I'll eat my hat.

Aside from that, your argument might hold up in court if they were contractors, but they're not - they're employees of the pizza company. As such, anything they do while on the job is the pizza company's responsibility, unless it can clearly be shown that the employee was violating company policy. Note that this specific issue is why very, very few pizza chains make any promises about "30 minute delivery" any more - pizza companies were being dinged* for accidents caused by the drivers, because the pizza companies put pressure on the drivers to deliver half a dozen deliveries per trip, and get them there by X time each.

*That is, successfully sued.

[s_stabeler]

While Dominoes is technically correct, I personally think that franchises should be banned, certainly in pizza delivery. Lets face it, how much control does a franchisee actually have? I juts think that allowing franchises encourages companies to set impossible rules because the company doesn't need to worry about the liability. ( for instance, "30 minutes or it's free" probably wouldn't have happened if there were no franchises)

It makes sense in car dealerships, which are usually franchises, because there, the franchise has quite a bit of control. But when you get into things like Pizzas? yeah, I dislike franchises.

[EmiOfBrie]

If delivery drivers end up getting forced to get vehicle inspections and repairs on their own dimes because of this, you'll see either (1) a drastic reduction in delivery drivers, resulting in much longer delivery times, or (2) franchises passing cars for delivery that fall short of the inspections and therefore making Dominos even MORE liable.

[Racket_Man]

Doesn't mean the company is responsible for the maintenance, since they don't own the car.

They reimburse the driver for wear and gas, making it the driver's responsibility.

NO THEY DO NOT.. see below Nekojin's quote and my comments below.

Having been a pizza driver, I can say categorically that no, they don't "reimburse" the driver for wear and gas. They give a per-trip "travel bonus," but it's the same amount regardless of whether you went one block over or 5 miles across town. And while it's probably more than enough to cover the gas used by the driver, it's nowhere near enough to cover wear and tear on the average car.

Show me a pizza company that does actual reimbursement (allows employees to submit repair and maintenance receipts, and have them repaid), and I'll eat my hat.

Most companies USED to do a variation of this. Meaning that they paid the prevailing IRS suggested per mile vehicle reimbursement BEFORE they did the straight per trip reimbursement. All around it was easier on both the company and the drivers. They did not have to deal with all of the paper work and all the employee and the company had to do was keep accurate track of miles driven per shift.

I WISH it was that way today.

Today, AT BEST, a pizza delivery driver is barely compensated for gas and THAT IS ALL. The rest of those vehicle expenses come DIRECTLY out of the driver pocket.

OPPPSSSS my transmission broke ---- $2000 outta my pocket. Grind those brakes ----- $300 outta my pocket. rear suspension bracket broke ------ $500 outta my pocket. axle bearing breaks ----- $300 outta my pocket

This along with falling wages. YES I SAID FALLING WAGES. Puts drivers between a rock and a hard place. Most of the major pizza delivery companies pay their drivers well BELOW minimum wage AND the company even get a tax credit for doing so.

Speaking as a current pizza delivery driver I unfortuneately can sympathize with the driver on the vehicle maintenance issue. IT IS VERY expensive to keep a car running when doing pizza delivery. We put a LOT more wear and tear on our vehicles than most average drivers. We do a LOT of urban stop and go driving.

AND the kicker is in that most states you can not legally do pizza delivery on an ordinary auto insurance policy. Technically you are required to have business or commercial insurance (read WAAAAYYYYYY more expensive about 3 times more expensive I should know). There are a few insurance companies that will let you do delivery without special insurance but they are the exception. There are several insurance companies that SPECIFICALLY WILL NOT insure a delivery driver or will payout if you are in an accident. They will retroactively cancel your policy for basically fraud and then leave you flapping in the breeze.

We drive in ALL kinds of weather. we are required to drive on the crappiest streets. and yes we still are under a time constraint.

Using my own data from last year (I keep fairly accurate records)

Total miles driven 24000 personal miles 300 job miles 21000

Total vehicle reimbursement from job $4800

that works out to about 23 cents per mile reimbursement from my job. 4800/21000 = .2285
Last year the IRS suggested per mile reimbursement was 55.5 cents PER MILE

You do the math on that one. .555-.2285 = .3265 * 21000 = $6856 in "missing" reimbursement.

AND another kicker is that if you try and claim that "missing" reimbursement on your Federal Taxes you will ONLY SEE a small percentage NOT the whole amount. One driver at my store (comparable with my stats) only received $500 back on that "missing" reimbursement. works out to about 7 or 8%.

after all of this little rant of mine, my belief is that Dominos corp is not liable. That responcibility lays squarely on the franchisee and their managers and their failure to uphold the corp. standards.

YES I have been in the same boat and yes there are things that I will not repair on my car but do NOT affect the driveability. Tires are one thing, especially in my area's weather conditions, that I do take seriously.

In this biz a real POS vehicle is a liability waiting to happen.

[wolfie]

Most of the major pizza delivery companies pay their drivers well BELOW minimum wage AND the company even get a tax credit for doing so.

WTF? I can understand a tax credit for paying a higher than normal wage, but from the way you're saying it, they're getting a tax credit when they pay below-minimum wage (presumably because delivery drivers are "tipped workers", even though it from what I see here and on CS, non-tipping is extremely common) that they WOULDN'T get if they paid minimum (or higher) wage. How is this possible?

[Racket_Man]

WTF? I can understand a tax credit for paying a higher than normal wage, but from the way you're saying it, they're getting a tax credit when they pay below-minimum wage (presumably because delivery drivers are "tipped workers", even though it from what I see here and on CS, non-tipping is extremely common) that they WOULDN'T get if they paid minimum (or higher) wage. How is this possible?

I see that credit line on EVERY paycheck. The company gets a $2 an hour "credit" every hour I am on the road because they pay me sub-minimum wage. They even get this "credit" for servers since servers get paid even less than we do. we must make up the difference between our real wage and minimum by receiving tips. If we do NOT make up the difference the company must make up the difference. THis is NOT based on an individual shift but aggregated over a pay period.

Federal Dept of Labor Fact sheet #15 the relevant section is near the top titled "Tip Credit"

[s_stabeler]

Racket_man, you can relax. The 'Tip Credit' is not an actual amount the company receives. Basically, your wages and the tip credit combines must at least equal the Federal Minimum Wage. That is what that is.