XML 25 R14.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.5.0.2
Legal Matters
8 Months Ended
Sep. 11, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Legal Matters

9. Legal Matters

On February 14, 2011, Domino’s Pizza LLC was named as a defendant in a lawsuit along with Fischler Enterprises of C.F., Inc., a franchisee, and Jeffrey S. Kidd, the franchisee’s delivery driver, filed by Yvonne Wiederhold, the plaintiff, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard E. Wiederhold, deceased. The case involved a traffic accident in which the franchisee’s delivery driver is alleged to have caused an accident involving a vehicle driven by Richard Wiederhold. Mr. Wiederhold sustained spinal injuries resulting in quadriplegia and passed away several months after the accident. The jury returned a $10.1 million judgment for the plaintiff where the Company and Mr. Kidd were found to be 90% liable (after certain offsets and other deductions the final verdict was $8.9 million). In the second quarter of 2016, the trial court ruled on all post-judgment motions and entered the judgment. The Company denies liability and in the third quarter of 2016 filed an appeal of the verdict on a variety of grounds.

On September 11, 2012, Domino’s Pizza LLC was named as a defendant in a lawsuit along with MAC Pizza Management, Inc., a large franchisee, and Joshua Balka, the franchisee’s delivery driver, filed by Raghurami Reddy, the plaintiff. The case involved a traffic accident in which the franchisee’s delivery driver collided with another vehicle, where the driver of the other vehicle sustained head injuries and the passenger of the other vehicle sustained fatal injuries. The jury delivered a $32.0 million judgment for the plaintiff where the Company was found to be 60% liable. The Company denied liability and filed an appeal of the verdict on a variety of grounds. In the first quarter of 2015, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the claims against the Company. The plaintiff filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. The Company filed opposition to the writ of review and asserted that the claims were appropriately dismissed by the Court of Appeals of the State of Texas. In the second quarter of 2016, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ writ of certiorari, leaving the appellate court’s favorable decision to stand. During the fourth quarter of 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Company continues to assert that the claims were appropriately dismissed by the Court of Appeals of the State of Texas.