Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1952 |
| Citation | 38 Cal.2d 375,240 P.2d 580 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | HAYES et ux. v. RICHFIELD OIL CORP. L. A. 21982 |
Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn and Henry F. Walker, all of Los Angeles, for appellant.
Shacknove & Goldman and Ben F. Goldman, Jr., all of Los Angeles, for respondents.
Mr. and Mrs. Hayes brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when Mrs. Hayes fell into the grease pit of a gasoline service station operated by defendant Scavone and leased by him from defendant Richfield Oil Corporation. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, judgment was entered accordingly, and defendant Richfield has appealed.
The principal contentions are that the evidence is not sufficient to show that Richfield violated any duty which it owed to plaintiffs, that there was a material variance between pleadings and proof, that there were errors in the giving and refusal of instructions, and that plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Mr. Hayes was a regular patron of the station and had taken Mrs. Hayes there on several occasions. He purchased gasoline, oil and accessories from Scavone, and for approximately a year he had been parking his private car on the premises while making business trips in a truck which was kept at a storage place across the street. Scavone had told him he could leave his car at the station while making these trips as long as he continued to trade there. Hayes' working hours were irregular, and he made numerous overnight trips out of town, on some of which he was accompanied by Mrs. Hayes.
At about 2:30 a. m. on the night of the accident Mr. and Mrs. Hayes left their car at the rear of the station, intending to take a trip in their truck. No attendant was present at the time, and all lights had been turned off except two lights inside the station building. Mr. and Mrs. Hayes walked along one side of the building following a course which was partially illuminated by a street lamp. They crossed the street to where the truck was parked but discovered that it was not in operating condition. They then started to return to their car by a shorter route which led along the other side of the station building where the illumination was not as good and objects could be only vaguely distinguished. Mr. Hayes walked ahead of his wife, and in the darkness she fell into the grease pit. She testified that she was not aware of the existence of the pit, and her husband stated that he knew of its location but did not think about it prior to the accident.
The pit was parallel to the rear wall of the station building, and it protruded on both sides about five feet beyond the extended lines of the building. It had concrete abutments four inches high at the ends and steel rails of the same height along the sides. There were sockets for guard rails, and the inventory attached to the lease listed chain guards for the pit, but no such protective devices were ever given to Scavone, and none had been used at any time prior to the accident.
When the accident occurred the pit was in the same condition as it was when Scavone took possession under his lease from Richfield. The lease recited that the property was designed for the operation of a gasoline service station and required Scavone to use it 'primarily for such purpose,' to make no material alterations without the lessor's consent and to maintain the premises in good order. In the event of a failure to repair, the lessor reserved the right to enter and make repairs. The lease could be terminated by either party on twenty-four hours' notice.
About once a week a Richfield employee called at the station, inspected the grounds and made suggestions with respect to methods of increasing sales. On two occasions, when equipment was in need of repairs, Scavone called the company's maintenance service, which did the necessary work. There was a large 'Richfield' sign on the roof of the station and smaller ones on the pumps indicating that Richfield gasoline was for sale. Scavone purchased all his gasoline and oil from Richfield but obtained other merchandise elsewhere. At different times he distributed advertising leaflets and courtesy cards offering free parking to patrons, and from time to time he permitted a number of customers to park their vehicles overnight. Scavone operated the station on a twenty-four hour basis for a few months after the lease was made and then discontinued selling gasoline between midnight and 6 a. m. Thereafter, during those hours, the only lights left burning were those inside the station building.
The first question involves the sufficiency of the evidence. Plaintiffs urge that the judgment may be supported on any one of the following theories: (1) that Richfield retained joint control with the lessee over the property and was liable for injuries resulting from dangerous conditions thereon; (2) that Richfield assumed the duty of inspecting the property but performed that duty in a negligent manner; and (3) that the premises were in a dangerous condition when leased, that they were leased for a purpose involving admission of the public, and that the lessor was under a duty to see that they were safe for the purpose intended. We are of the opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to show that Richfield retained joint control or that it assumed the duty of inspecting the property but we need not discuss these contentions in detail since we have concluded that there is amply evidence to support a recovery on the third theory.
A lessor who leases property for a purpose involving the admission of the public is under a duty to see that it is safe for the purposes intended and to exercise reasonable care to inspect and repair the property before possession is transferred so as to prevent any unreasonable risk of harm to the public who may enter. Burroughs v. Ben's Auto Park, Inc., 27 Cal.2d 449, 453, 164 P.2d 897; King v. New Masonic Temple Ass'n, 51 Cal.App.2d 512, 515, 125 P.2d 559; Boothby v. Town of Yreka City, 117 Cal.App. 643, 649, 4 P.2d 589. There is authority that a lessor is not liable if the land is used for a public purpose not contemplated by the lease, see Prosser on Torts (1941) p. 655, but Richfield cannot avoid liability on this ground. The lease to Scavone required him to use the premises 'primarily' as a gasoline service station, and not only does this purpose involve admission of the public, but it appears that such purpose would be properly served by the incidental use of a portion of the lot as a free parking space for patrons. In making such a lease the lessor should reasonably anticipate that the lessee might use the premises for activities connected with or in aid of the main business, and here the use of part of the premises for parking as an accommodation to customers of the service station appears to be clearly within the uses contemplated by the lease. There is no merit in Richfield's contention that its responsibility as lessor did not extend to persons who entered the lot when the station was not open for the sale of gasoline. Scavone offered free parking to his patrons and invited Hayes and other customers to park overnight, and this necessarily included an invitation to them to enter the property whenever they wished to leave or pick up their vehicles.
Although the premises were in the same condition at the time of the accident as they were when possession was delivered to Scavone, Richfield argues that they became dangerous only because Scavone had turned off all the lights at midnight without putting up any protective device around the pit. We cannot say as a matter of law, however, that the premises were safe even when fully illuminated. As we have seen the grease pit was open and unguarded, and while the lease listed chains for the pit as part of the equipment, and there were sockets for guard rails, no such means of protection were furnished to Scavone or placed in use prior to the accident. But if we should assume that the premises were safe when illuminated, there is nothing in the lease which required Scavone to operate the station on a twenty-four hour basis or to keep it fully lighted throughout the night. In the absence of such requirements, the jury could have concluded that Richfield should reasonably have anticipated that Scavone might not wish to keep the station open day and night, that he might leave...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Akins v. Sonoma County
...such injuries result from unsafe conditions of the property existing at the time the lessee took possession. Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp., 38 Cal.2d 375, 380, 240 P.2d 580; Rau v. Redwood City Woman's Club, 111 Cal.App.2d 546, 549, 245 P.2d 12; Burroughs v. Ben's Auto Park, Inc., 27 Cal.2d ......
-
Knight v. Jewett
... ... General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 734-742, 144 Cal.Rptr. 380, 575 P.2d 1162; Safeway Stores, Inc. v ... (Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 158, 162, 265 P.2d 904; see Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp. (1952) 38 Cal.2d 375, 384-385, 240 P.2d 580.) Assumption of risk may be ... ...
-
Harrold v. Rolling J Ranch
...the risk. (Grey v. Fibreboard Paper Products Co., supra, 65 Cal.2d at p. 244, 53 Cal.Rptr. 545, 418 P.2d 153; Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp. (1952) 38 Cal.2d 375, 385, 240 P.2d 580.) Finally, the assumption of risk defense could be asserted even where the plaintiff exercised due care in assum......
-
Gregory v. Cott
...by the negligence of another. ( Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 158, 162, 265 P.2d 904; see Hayes v. Richfield Oil Corp. (1952) 38 Cal.2d 375, 384–385, 240 P.2d 580.) ... [¶] The defense of assumption of risk ... [was] based on consent. ( Vierra v. Fifth Avenue Rental Servic......