For Your Data Papa John’S International, Inc. V. Mccoy Illustration Brief
May 03, 2016
Edit
Papa John’s International, Inc. v. McCoy example brief summary
244 S.W.3d 44 (2008)
CASE FACTS
The client claimed that subsequently he paid for a pizza delivery, the employee made simulated statements to the police, resulting inwards surely charges against the customer. The charges were eventually dropped, in addition to the client sued appellants for malicious prosecution in addition to defamation. The lawsuit courtroom granted summary judgment to appellants on both claims.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the appellate court's conclusion in addition to reinstated the lawsuit court's judgment for the franchisor in addition to the franchisee on all claims.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law



244 S.W.3d 44 (2008)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, a franchisor in addition to a franchisee, challenged a judgment of the Court of Appeals (Kentucky), which reversed a lawsuit courtroom judgment granting them summary judgment amongst regard to appellee customer's claims for malicious prosecution in addition to defamation arising inwards connective amongst a pizza delivery to the client yesteryear the franchisee's employee.CASE FACTS
The client claimed that subsequently he paid for a pizza delivery, the employee made simulated statements to the police, resulting inwards surely charges against the customer. The charges were eventually dropped, in addition to the client sued appellants for malicious prosecution in addition to defamation. The lawsuit courtroom granted summary judgment to appellants on both claims.
DISCUSSION
- The appellate courtroom reversed.
- Reversing the appellate court's decision, the courtroom concluded that the franchisee could non hold out held vicariously liable for the statements that the employee made to the police describe equally the acts complained of occurred inside an independent class of bear that could non convey been intended yesteryear the employee to serve whatever role of the franchisee.
- The franchisor could non hold out held liable because it had no command over the employee's intentional, tortious conduct.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the appellate court's conclusion in addition to reinstated the lawsuit court's judgment for the franchisor in addition to the franchisee on all claims.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations in addition to Business Associations Law