agency analysis in Kentucky

2024In their respective briefs, the parties cite and apply various tests to determine whether Domino’s was vicariously liable, including: the franchisor liability test announced in Papa John’s International, Inc. v. McCoy, 244 S.W.3d 44, 55 (Ky. 2008), the traditional agency analysis set forth in the Restatement of Law, Agency, Section 220(2) (1933), and Sam Horne Motor & Implement Company, Inc. v. Gregg, 279 S.W.2d 755, 756-57 (Ky. 1955), and the economic realities test espoused in Mouanda v. Jani-King International, 653 S.W.3d 65 (Ky. 2022) (though Durham concedes the latter was rendered after s

2024In their respective briefs, the parties cite and apply various tests to determine whether Domino’s was vicariously liable, including: the franchisor liability test announced in Papa John’s International, Inc. v. McCoy, 244 S.W.3d 44, 55 (Ky. 2008), the traditional agency analysis set forth in the Restatement of Law, Agency, Section 220(2) (1933), and Sam Horne Motor & Implement Company, Inc. v. Gregg, 279 S.W.2d 755, 756-57 (Ky. 1955), and the economic realities test espoused in Mouanda v. Jani-King International, 653 S.W.3d 65 (Ky. 2022) (though Durham concedes the latter was rendered after s

2024Papa John’s, which arose from a tort action, is directly on point binding authority wherein, having concluded that “the traditional rules pertaining to scope of employment and ostensible agency are inapposite to the issue of a franchisor’s vicarious liability[,]” the court adopted the franchisor liability test. 244 S.W.3d at 55 .

2011“Historically Kentucky ... awarded punitive damages against the principal coextensive with the award of punitive damages against the agent, applying the agency principle, respondeat superior, in the same way to liability for punitive damages as it is applied when awarding compensatory damages.” Horton v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co., 690 S.W.2d 382, 390 (Ky.1985).