Hoover v. Sun Oil Company

212 A.2d 214 (1965)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A fire started at the rear of P's car when it was being filled with gasoline. The service station was owned by Barone (D) and the fire was allegedly caused by the negligence of Smilyk an employee of D. P sued Smilyk, D and Sun Oil Company (D1), which owned the service station. D1 moved for summary judgment in that D was an independent contractor. P contends that D was acting as D1's agent and that D1 is also liable for P's injuries. D began operating the business pursuant to a lease dated October 17, 1960. The station and all its equipment (except a tire stand and rack and some displays and hand tools) belonged to D1. The lease was subject to termination on 30 days notice after the first six months. The rent was partially determined from the volume of gas sold, but there was a minimum and maximum monthly rental. There was also a dealer’s agreement in which D was to purchase petroleum products from D1 and D1 was to loan the necessary equipment and advertising materials. D was permitted to sell competitive products. D was prohibited from selling D1's products except under the Sunoco label and from blending them with products not supplied by D1. All of D's advertising indicated that Sunoco products were sold therein. Employees wore Sunoco uniforms, but they were owned by D and rented from an independent company. D also attended a D1 school for service station operators for bookkeeping, merchandising, proper appearance and maintenance of a Sun station and Oil products. Weekly visits were made by D1's sales representative for order taking, inspection, customer complaints, and suggestions on how to improve sales. D1 also had a meet comp program that allowed D to meet local competition for prices. D1 only advised D, and no reports were to be made to D1. D bore all the risk in the operation from a profit and loss standpoint. D independently determined his own hours of operation, pay scales, working conditions, and the identity of each employee. P contends that D1 controlled the service station and therefore summary judgment should not be granted.