Beckham v. Exxon Corp., 16672
| Decision Date | 22 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 16672,16672 |
| Citation | 539 S.W.2d 217 |
| Parties | Bonnie BECKHAM et al., Appellants, v. EXXON CORPORATION, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Brock, Williams & Boyd, Gerald J. Goodwin, Houston, for appellant.
Charles Matthews, Lauren Eaton, Houston, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted the defendant, Exxon Corporation in a case growing out of an automobile collision between a wrecker driven by Robert Wilder, an employee of Joe Cunningham, who operated an Exxon Service Station. The issue is the existence of a master/servant relationship between Exxon and Joe Cunningham. We find no evidence raising an issue of fact and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Exxon has the burden of establishing by affirmative evidence that there are no material issues of fact. Farley v. Prudential Insurance Co., 480 S.W.2d 176 (Tex.1974). The court will be guided by this principle of law in reviewing the evidence.
Guidelines for evaluating the relationship between Exxon and Cunningham are provided by the Supreme Court in Texas Co. v. Wheat, 140 Tex. 468, 168 S.W.2d 632 (1943), and Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Martin, 148 Tex. 175, 222 S.W.2d 995. In Wheat the court stated:
'Whether or not the relation of master and servant existed between the Texas Company and Gossen so as to make the doctrine of respondeat superior applicable, depends upon whether the Texas Company has the right to control Gossen in the details of the work to be performed in the operation of the service station . . .'
It appears that the court first examined the contracts between the parties to determine whether or not Texaco had a contractual right to control Gossen in the details of the work to be performed in the service station and then examined the evidence to determine whether or not Texaco in fact controlled Gossen and his employees in the details of the work performed in the operation of that station.
Joe Cunningham testified that he was 25 years old, a high school graduate, and that he had received some additional educational training while in the job corps. At one time he operated a Texaco service station, but he didn't have enough money to make a go of it. He lost money and had to turn it back to Texaco. He found other employment and saved a sum of money which he considered sufficient to again go into the filling station business. He applied to Humble Oil Company for a station and found that he was required to attend a training school. He entered the training school and on completion of the course was assigned a station. At first he was the salaried manager of the station. While attending the training course he was given three books, one of which is entitled 'Retail Store Operating Procedures Manager Humble Oil & Refining Company.' It contains detailed instructions concerning the methods to be used in operating the filling station. He was also given a book entitled The third book with which he was furnished was entitled 'Service Station Management.' Mr. Cunningham was required to familiarize himself with the contents of these books while in the training school. Subsequently while he was employed by Humble he was required to operate the station in accordance with the directions contained in these books. He testified that after he served as a manager for several months, the relationship changed, and he became a dealer.
When Mr. Cunningham became a dealer he entered into two contracts with Humble Oil & Refining Company, one entitled 'Sales Agreement' and another entitled 'Lease to Dealer.' The lease concerned the same filling station which he had previously managed located at the intersection of North Freeway and Little York Road. It was for a period of three years and contained a provision authorizing the lessee to terminate at any time by giving Humble thirty days' prior written notice and authorized Humble to terminate the lease during the first year by giving lessee thirty days' prior written notice. The lease provided for a basic rental of 1 1/2 cents on each gallon of gasoline and motor fuel delivered plus $75.00 per month for the use of the 'third bay.' The rental was payable on delivery of the gasoline and motor fuel to the lessee's storage tanks. It included a provision for a rental adjustment in favor of the lessee based on the amount of gasoline sold above a certain 'base gallonage'. The lease contained various provisions usual to a real estate rental contract including covenants to make no unlawful or offensive use of the premises, to keep the premises in a clean and orderly condition, to pay the rent on time, to make no assignment of the lease, to make no additions or alterations to the structure of the building without written permission of the lessor, and 'to make at Lessee's expense all repairs to the premises and equipment caused by the neglect, misuse or carelessness of Lessee and Lessee's employees.' The lessee agreed 'to use the premises as a drive-in gasoline station only, and to keep such station open for such purpose 24 hours each day.' It is of some significance that the lease provided:
'No obligation is imposed on the Lessee by the terms of this lease for real estate and personal property taxes and assessments on the premises herein demised, but Lessee agrees to pay personal property taxes on Lessee's property and all other taxes, license fees, assessments and charges levied against and necessary for the operation of Lessee's business on said premises, including charges for sewer rent or service, water, telephone, gas and electric current consumed on said premises and any other services that may be furnished said premises.'
The sales agreement was for a period one year and for year-to-year thereafter, subject to the right of either party to terminate the same at the end of the first contract year or any subsequent contract year by giving to the other par...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coffey v. Fort Wayne Pools, Inc.
...and displays its signs, ads and logo. Id. at *2 (citing Texas Co. v. Wheat, 140 Tex. 468, 168 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.1943); Beckham v. Exxon Corp., 539 S.W.2d 217, 220 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1976, no writ); Ackley v. State, 592 S.W.2d 606, 608 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (emphasizing sim......
-
Exxon Corp. v. Tidwell
...1986, no writ); Edwards v. Neely Oil, Inc., 556 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Beckham v. Exxon Corp., 539 S.W.2d 217 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1976, no writ); Willman v. Texaco, Inc., 535 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Sp......
-
Kroshus v. Koury
...and without that crucial factor, there can be no vicarious liability. Massey v. Tube Art Display, Inc., supra; see Beckham v. Exxon Corp., 539 S.W.2d 217 (Tex.App.1976). Kroshus argues that Texaco should, nonetheless, be liable as a matter of public policy because its enormous economic powe......
-
O'Neill v. Startex Petroleum, Inc.
...had to be purchased from the company; and that the company set the prices and controlled the hours of operation. In Beckham v. Exxon Corporation, 539 S.W.2d 217 (Tex.Civ.App.1976, no writ), a summary judgment was affirmed where the service station operator purchased gasoline from the oil co......