Feltner v. PJ Operations, LLC
568 S.W.3d 1
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Peyton Feltner, as Administrator of Earl Feltner's estate, sued delivery driver Toney Jones, franchisee PJ Operations/PJ Holdings ("PJ's"), and franchisor Papa John’s after Jones struck and killed Earl after clocking out.
- Claims included negligence, vicarious liability (respondeat superior), negligent hiring/supervision/retention, and franchisor liability against Papa John’s.
- Papa John’s and PJ’s moved for summary judgment; Feltner moved for partial summary judgment that Jones was acting within the scope of employment. Trial court granted summary judgment to Papa John’s and PJ’s and denied Feltner’s partial motion; appeal followed.
- Key undisputed facts: Jones had ended his shift, clocked out at the store, and was driving home when the accident occurred; he was not performing work duties after clocking out.
- Appellate court reviewed de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment and whether exceptions to the going-and-coming rule applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones was acting within the scope/course of employment (vicarious liability) | Jones’ commute in an employer-required vehicle was subject to employer control and served employer purpose, so he remained in scope | Once Jones clocked out and left the store he was free from duty; commute is generally outside scope unless service-to-employer exception applies | Court held Jones was not acting in scope; going-and-coming rule applies and no exception fit; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether negligent hiring/supervision/retention liability exists (direct employer negligence) | PJ’s should have known Jones was unfit and his placement/retention created an unreasonable risk | Employer lacked ability/right to control post-shift personal conduct; no causal link between employment and the accident | Court held no genuine issue that PJ’s placement/retention created unreasonable risk; summary judgment proper |
| Whether franchisor (Papa John’s) is vicariously liable for franchisee/employee conduct | Papa John’s allegedly controlled delivery practices and thus had right to control the conduct that caused harm | Papa John’s lacked control or right of control over the specific daily operations that produced the tortious conduct | Court held Feltner failed to show Papa John’s control over the conduct; franchisor liability not established; summary judgment proper |
| Procedural compliance with appellate rules | (not a plaintiff substantive argument) Feltner’s briefs relied on sparse record citations | Defendants noted noncompliance with CR 76.12; sought sanctions | Court warned about noncompliance but exercised discretion not to strike briefs or dismiss appeal; admonished counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 194 S.W.2d 81 (Ky. 1946) (articulates scope-of-employment test: employee must be furthering employer’s business)
- Papa John's Intern., Inc. v. McCoy, 244 S.W.3d 44 (Ky. 2008) (franchisor liable only when it controls the specific daily operations causing the harm)
- Collins v. Appalachian Research & Def. Fund of Kentucky, Inc., 409 S.W.3d 365 (Ky. App. 2012) (discusses going-and-coming rule and scope principles)
- Keck's Adm'r v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 200 S.W. 452 (Ky. 1918) (employee using employer property after hours for personal convenience is acting for self)
- Olsten-Kimberly Quality Care v. Parr, 965 S.W.2d 155 (Ky. 1998) (service-to-employer exception in travel cases under workers’ compensation principles)
- Grand Aerie Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Carneyhan, 169 S.W.3d 840 (Ky. 2005) (elements and limits of negligent hiring/retention and employer’s duty to control)
- Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991) (summary judgment standard for assessing genuine issues of material fact)