No. The court decided that Sun Oil is not responsible for the fire. Even though the station looked like a Sunoco and sold Sun's gas, Barone was the real boss. Sun didn't control the day-to-day stuff, like who worked there or when the station was open. Because Barone was an independent business owner, not just a manager taking orders, Sun can't be blamed for a mistake made by one of his employees.

No, the big oil company shouldn't be blamed for the accident. The guy running the gas station was in charge of his own business, not working for the oil company. I think this because the oil company didn't tell him how to run things every day, and didn't have the right to control his day-to-day business operations. Even though the oil company and gas station operator worked closely together and both wanted to sell a lot of the oil company's gas, the gas station operator was the one who decided things like who to hire, what hours to be open, and how to run his business. So, they had a business relationship, but not a boss-employee relationship. That's why the court said the oil company doesn't have to pay for the accident.

No, the big oil company shouldn't be blamed for the accident. The guy running the gas station was in charge of his own business, not working for the oil company. This is because the oil company didn't tell him how to run things every day, and didn't have the right to control his day-to-day business operations. Even though the oil company and gas station operator worked closely together and both wanted to sell a lot of the oil company's gas, the gas station operator was the one who decided things like who to hire, what hours to be open, and how to run his business. So, they had a business relationship, but not a boss-employee relationship. That is why the big oil company doesn't have to pay for the accident.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<opinion data-order="8" data-type="opinion" id="x999-1" type="majority">

 This case is concerned with injuries received as the result of a fire on August 16,1962 at the service station operated by James F. Barone. The fire started at the rear of plaintiffs car where it was being filled with gasoline and was allegedly caused by the negligence of John Smilyk an employee of Barone. Plaintiffs brought suit against Smilyk, Barone and Sun Oil Company (Sun) which owned the service station.
 

 Sun has moved for summary judgment as to it on the basis that Barone was an independent contractor and therefore the alleged negligence of his employee could not result in liability as to Sun. The plaintiffs contend instead that Barone was acting as Sun’s agent and that Sun may therefore be responsible for plaintiffs injuries.
 

 Barone began operating this business in October of 1960 pursuant to a lease dated October 17, 1960. The station and all of its equipment, with the exception of a tire-stand and rack, certain advertising displays and miscellaneous hand tools, were owned by Sun. The lease was subject .to termination by either party upon thirty days’ written notice after the first six months and at the anniversary date thereafter. The rental was partially determined by the volume of gasoline purchased but there was also a minimum and a maximum monthly rental.
 

 
 *555
 
 At the same time, Sun and Barone also entered into a dealer’s agreement under which Barone was to purchase petroleum products from Sun and Sun was to loan necessary equipment and advertising materials. Barone was required to maintain this equipment and to use it solely for Sun products. Barone was permitted under the agreement to sell competitive products but chose to do so only in a few minor areas As to Sun products, Barone was prohibited from selling .them except under the Sunoco label and from blending them with products not supplied by Sun.
 

 Barone’s station had the usual large signs indicating that Sunoco products were sold there. His advertising in the classified section of the telephone book was under a Sunoco heading and his employees wore uniforms with the Sun emblem, the uniforms being owned by Barone or rented from an independent company.
 

 Barone, upon the urging of Robert B. Peterson, Sun’s area sales representative, attended a Sun school for service station operators in 1961. The school’s curriculum was designed to familiarize the station operator with bookkeeping and merchandising, the appearance and proper maintenance of a Sun station, and the Sun Oil products. The course concluded with the operator working at Sun’s model station in order to gain work experience in the use of the policy and techniques taught at the school.
 

 Other facts typifying the company-service station relationship were the weekly visits of Sun’s sales representative, Peterson, who would take orders for Sun products, inspect the restrooms, communicate customer complaints, make various suggestions to improve sales and discuss any problems that Barone might be having. Besides the weekly visits, Peterson was in contact with Barone on other occasions in order to implement Sun’s “competitive allowance system” which enabled Barone to meet local price competition by giving him a rebate on the gasoline in his inventory roughly equivalent to the price decline and a similarly reduced price on his next order of gasoline.
 

 While Peterson did offer advice to Barone on all phases of his
 
 *556
 
 operation, it was usually done on request and Barone was under no obligation to follow the advice. Barone’s contacts and dealings with Sun were many and their relationship intricate, but he made no written reports to Sun and he alone assumed the overall risk of profit or loss in his business operation. Barone independently determined his own hours of operation and the identity, pay scale and working conditions of his employees, and it was his name that was posted as proprietor.
 

 Plaintiffs contend in effect that the aforegoing facts indicate that Sun controlled the day-to-day operation of the station and consequently Sun is responsible for the negligent acts of Barone’s employee. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that there is an issue of fact for the jury to determine as to whether or not there was an agency relationship.
 

 The legal relationships arising from the distribution systems of major oil-producing companies are in certain respects unique. As stated in an annotation collecting many of the cases dealing with this relationship:
 

 “This distribution system has grown up primarily as the result of economic factors and with little relationship to traditional legal concepts in the field of master and servant, so that it is perhaps not surprising that attempts by the court to discuss the relationship in the standard terms have led to some difficulties and confusion.” 83 A.L.R. 2d 1282, 1284 (1962).
 

 In some situations traditional definitions of principal and agent and of employer and independent contractor may be difficult to apply to service station operations, but the undisputed facts of the case at bar make it clear that Barone was an independent contractor.
 

 Barone’s service station, unlike retail outlets for many products, is basically a one-company outlet and represents to the public, through Sunoco’s national and local advertising, that it sells not only Sun’s quality products but Sun’s quality service. Many people undoubtedly come to the service station because of that latter representation.
 

 
 *557
 
 However, the lease contract and dealer’s agreement fail to establish any relationship other than landlord- tenant, and independent contractor. Nor is there anything in the conduct of the individuals which is inconsistent with that relationship so as to indicate that the contracts were mere subterfuge or sham. The areas of close contact between Sun and Barone stem from the fact that both have a mutual interest in the sale of Sun products and in the success of Barone’s business.
 

 The cases cited by both plaintiffs and defendant indicate that the result varies according to the contracts involved and the conduct and evidence of control under those contracts. Both lines of cases indicate that the test to be applied is that of whether the oil company has retained the right to control the details of the day-to-day operation of the service station; control or influence over results alone being viewed as insufficient. Those cases cited by Sun are regarded as correctly stating the law. See
 
 Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Scaletta,
 
 200 Ark. 645, 140 S.W.2d 684 (1940);
 
 Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
 
 124 So.2d 517, 83 A.L.R. 2d 1276 (Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1960);
 
 Cities Service Oil Co. v. Kindt,
 
 200 Okl. 64, 190 P.2d 1007 (1948);
 
 Texas Co. v. Wheat,
 
 140 Tex. 468, 168 S.W.2d 632 (1943). Those cases cited by plaintiffs to the extent that they are inconsistent with this view are not followed. It should be noted however that the same rule of law is applied in nearly all of the cases and that the differences in result are explained by different fact situations and greater evidence of oil company control. See
 
 Edwards v. Gulf Oil Corp., 69
 
 Ga. App. 140, 13 S.E.2d 843 (1943), ibid., 71 Ga.App. 649, 31 S.E.2d 677 (1944);
 
 Brenner v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 236
 
 Mo.App. 524, 158 S.W.2d 171 (1942);
 
 Texas Co. v. Freer,
 
 151 S.W.2d 907 (Civ. App. Tex., 1941). For a conclusion that the degree of control over the method of operation is determinative, see 83 A.L.R.2d 1282, 1284 (1962).
 

 The facts of this case differ markedly from those in which the oil company was held liable for the tortious conduct of its service station operator or his employees. Sun had no control over the retails of Barone’s day-to-day operation. Therefore, no liability can be imputed to Sun from the allegedly negligent acts of Smilyk. Sun’s motion for
 
 *558
 
 summary judgment is granted.
 

 It is so ordered.
 
</opinion>

A franchisor may be held to have an actual agency relationship with its franchisee when the former controls, or has the right to control, the latter's business.

However, the lease contract and dealer' s agreement fail to establish any relationship other than landlord-tenant, and independent contractor. Nor is there anything in the conduct of the individuals which is inconsistent with that relationship so as to indicate that the contracts were mere subterfuge or sham

The question of the presence of de facto control of the franchisor, even where it does not arise from franchise documents, would preclude summary judgments in some cases

The contracts contained no provision requiring the lessee to perform any duty The Texas Company might see fit to impose on him, nor did the company pay any part of the lessee's operating expenses, nor control the working hours of the station....

This can be done by asking the students to see how this case fits in with the other cases in the series of cases dealing with scope of authority and employer 's vicarious liability in the franchise context in which courts found that there was either an employer-employee or principal agency relation leading to vicarious liability

—holding that a parent company was not liable for a tort committed by a franchise of the company because the facts indicated an insufficient degree of control

—denying agency relationship because "Sun had no control over the [details] of Barone's day-to-day operation

By contrast, a principal' s ability to control an agent once the agency relationship has been established can be tricky to define in general terms and is usually determined by the facts of a particular case

No. An oil company is not vicariously liable for the torts of a service station operator's employee where the company does not control the details of the station's day-to-day operation. The court found that Barone was an independent contractor, not an agent of Sun. The test for agency is whether the principal has retained the right to control the details of the day-to-day operation. Here, the lease and dealer's agreement established a landlord-tenant and independent contractor relationship. Key factors indicating Barone's independence included his exclusive control over hiring, employee management, and work hours, as well as his assumption of all risk for profit or loss. Sun's influence, such as branding requirements, weekly advisory visits, and training opportunities, stemmed from a mutual interest in selling Sun products and did not rise to the level of day-to-day operational control required to establish an agency relationship.

No, Sun Oil Company is not liable for the plaintiffs' injuries because Barone was an independent contractor, not an agent of Sun. The lease and dealer's agreement between Sun and Barone, as well as their conduct, indicate a landlord-tenant and independent contractor relationship, not an agency. I conclude this because Sun did not control the day-to-day operations of Barone's service station, which is the determinative factor for liability. The absence of control or the right to control Barone's business operations by Sun precludes the establishment of an actual agency relationship. While Sun and Barone had a close business relationship with mutual interests, Barone ultimately made his own decisions regarding hiring, hours, and business operations. The areas of close contact between Sun and Barone stem from the fact that both have a mutual interest in the sale of Sun products and in the success of Barone's business, but this alone is insufficient to establish an agency relationship. Therefore, Sun's motion for summary judgment is granted.

Hoover v. Sun Oil Company

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot