Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp.
Decision Date | 15 September 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 0838,0838 |
Citation | 291 S.C. 62,352 S.E.2d 284 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Lloyd WATKINS, Respondent, v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION and John T. McCampbell, of which Mobil Oil Corporation is Appellant. . Heard |
J. Reese Daniel of Daniel & Daniel, Columbia, for appellant.
J. Marvin Mullis, Jr., and Carl N. Lundberg, Columbia, for respondent.
Lloyd Watkins brought suit against the appellant Mobil Oil Corporation and John T. McCampbell alleging causes of action for assault and battery and for malicious prosecution. The causes of action arose out of an incident that occurred at a gasoline station operated by Station Operators, Inc. Watkins alleged in his amended complaint that McCampbell was Mobil's "agent, servant, and employee." Mobil denied that he was so in its amended answer. The jury returned a verdict in Watkins' favor against both Mobil and McCampbell for actual and punitive damages. Mobil appeals the failure of the trial judge to grant its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether Watkins established that McCampbell, an employee of Station Operators, was Mobil's "agent, servant, and employee."
We examine the evidence in accordance with the principles that a judgment must be affirmed on appeal where there is any evidence to support the factual findings implicit in the jury's verdict and that the party opposing the motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict is entitled to all favorable inferences where the evidence is conflicting. Hilton Head Island Realty, Inc. v. Skull Creek Club, 287 S.C. 530, 339 S.E.2d 890 (Ct.App.1986).
Sometime between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m. on September 1, 1979, Watkins went to the North Main Mobil Oil Station near Interstate-20 and U.S. Highway 21 in Richland County. Watkins intended "to purchase a pack of cigarettes." He went to North Main Mobil because it was the "closest station to [his house] that sold [his] particular brand across the counter."
As he opened the door to enter the station, a man, later identified as McCampbell, slammed the door on Watkins' hand. Watkins grabbed the door open with his good hand. He demanded an explanation from McCampbell saying, "Hey, what's wrong with you?"
McCampbell responded, "This place is closed."
Watkins then remarked, "Well, you picked a hell of a way to tell me it was closed."
On hearing Watkins' remark, McCampbell cursed, went behind the counter, and got a gun. He advanced toward Watkins with the gun. Watkins feared for his life.
The station manager stopped McCampbell and tussled with him over the gun. McCampbell, who was the assistant manager of the station, shot the station manager in the struggle for the gun.
Several days later, two officers arrested Watkins on a warrant charging Watkins with having trespassed upon the premises of "North Main Mobil ... after he was told the store was closed." McCampbell's affidavit supported the warrant. He secured the warrant "because they told him" to do so.
The officers took Watkins handcuffed to the Richland County Jail where he was fingerprinted, photographed, and incarcerated. A magistrate later dismissed the trespassing charge.
Station Operators ran all Mobil stations in the Columbia area. It employed McCampbell and paid his salary.
No sign identified the station as one operated by Station Operators; however, a Mobil sign topped the station and the word "Mobil" appeared on the station's gasoline pumps. The station manager wore a jacket that exhibited the Mobil emblem.
We first address the question of whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of actual agency.
The decisive test in determining whether the relation of master and servant exists is whether the purported master has the right or power to direct and control the servant in the performance of his work and in the manner in which the work is to be done. Keitz v. National Paving Co., 214 Md. 479, 134 A.2d 296 (1957); see Fernander v. Thigpen, 278 S.C. 140, 144, 293 S.E.2d 424, 426 (1982) () (Emphasis theirs); Young v. Warr, 252 S.C. 179, 189, 165 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1969) (); DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304, 307-08, 108 S.E.2d 114, 116 (1959) ().
Here, there is no evidence whatever that Mobil asserted any right to control Station Operators' operations or its employees, including McCampbell. Absent from the record also is any evidence that Station Operators leased the premises from Mobil or had any sort of agreement with the oil company. So far as the record before us reveals, Station Operators alone controlled the station's operations, its employees, and the station's premises.
Indeed, the evidence shows nothing more than that Station Operators sold Mobil's gasoline, permitted an employee to wear clothing exhibiting Mobil's emblem, and displayed Mobil's name atop its station and on its pumps. The display of Mobil signs and its emblem merely represented to motorists and others that the station marketed Mobil's products. Coe v. Esau, 377 P.2d 815 (Okla.1963).
Without some evidence of Mobil's right to control the conduct of Station Operators' business, the evidence is insufficient to warrant the conclusion that a master-servant relationship existed between Mobil and Station Operators, thereby rendering Mobil liable for McCampbell's actions. Price v. Cities Service Oil Co., 71 A.D.2d 700, 418 N.Y.S.2d 488 (1979); see Manis v. Gulf Oil Corp., 124 Ga.App. 638, 185 S.E.2d 589 (1971) ( ).
Watkins, therefore, failed to establish actual agency. B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, 279 Md. 632, 370 A.2d 554 (1977); cf. Fernander v. Thigpen, supra ( ); Chevron Oil Co. v. Sutton, 85 N.M. 679, 515 P.2d 1283 (1973) ( ).
We next address the question of whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of apparent agency.
To establish apparent agency, it is not enough simply to prove that the purported principal by either affirmative conduct or conscious and voluntary inaction has represented another to be his agent or servant. A party must also prove reliance upon the representation and a change of position to his detriment in reliance on the representation. ZIV TV Programs v. Associated Grocers, Inc., of S.C., 236 S.C. 448, 114 S.E.2d 826 (1960); Fochtman v. Clanton's Auto Auction Sales, 233 S.C. 581, 106 S.E.2d 272 (1958); 2A C.J.S. Agency 160 at 797 (1972); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 267 (1958); see Fernander v. Thigpen, supra ( ).
As in B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, supra, only the factor of reliance warrants discussion because the evidence falls far short of establishing reliance.
Watkins went to the station to buy cigarettes, not gasoline. The only reason he selected the Mobil station was because of its proximity to his house. Although Watkins had purchased ice, soft drinks, and cigarettes from the station on other occasions, there is no evidence Mobil supplied Station Operators with these items. See Apple v. Standard Oil, Division of American Oil Co., 307 F.Supp. 107 (N.D.Cal.1969) ( ).
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Watkins was attracted to the station because it was a Mobil station or that he was enticed by Mobil's advertising to visit the station. Cf. Gizzi v. Texaco, Inc., 437 F.2d 308 (3d Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 829, 92 S.Ct. 65, 30 L.Ed.2d 57 (1971) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cefaratti v. Aranow
...because he believed he was dealing with the estopped party's agent" [internal quotation marks omitted]); Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 S.C. 62, 67, 352 S.E.2d 284 (App. 1986) (To prove apparent agency in a tort action, "it is not enough simply to prove that the purported principal by eith......
-
Cefaratti v. Aranow
...because he believed he was dealing with the estopped party's agent” [internal quotation marks omitted] ); Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 S.C. 62, 67, 352 S.E.2d 284 (App.1986) (To prove apparent agency in a tort action, “it is not enough simply to prove that the purported principal by eith......
-
O'Banner v. McDonald's Corp.
...315; Chevron U.S.A. v. Lesch (1990), 319 Md. 25, 570 A.2d 840; Wood v. Shell Oil Co. (Ala.1986), 495 So.2d 1034; Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp. (1986), 291 S.C. 62, 352 S.E.2d 284; Smith v. Maytag Corp. (1995), 216 Ga.App. 676, 455 S.E.2d 379; McGuire v. Radisson Hotels International, Inc. (Ga.......
-
Simmons v. Tuomey Regional Medical Center
...detriment in reliance on the representation. See Strickland v. Madden, 323 S.C. at 70, 448 S.E.2d at 585; Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 S.C. 62, 67, 352 S.E.2d 284 (Ct.App.1986) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 267 (1958)). The focus is on the acts and conduct of the principal, no......
-
B. Vicarious Liability
...servant exists is whether the purported master has the right or power to direct and control the servant...." Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 S.C. 62, 65, 352 S.E.2d 284 (Ct. App. 1986) (emphasis added). Consistent with the concern with right or power, the terms of the contract of employment......
-
VOLUME I Chapter 1 Employment Contracts
...781, 782 (1991); Allen v. Columbia Fin.Mgmt., Ltd., 297 S.C. 481, 488, 377 S.E.2d 352, 356-57 (Ct. App. 1988); Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 S.C. 62, 65, 352 S.E.2d 284, 286 (Ct. App. 1986).[5] Kilgore Grp., 313 S.C. at 68, 437 S.E.2d at 49; Anderson v. West, 270 S.C. 184, 187, 241 S.E.2d......
-
§ 5-6 Apparent Authority
...(Ct. App. 1991)(party who alleges apparent authority has burden of production and persuasion on that issue); Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 S.C. 62, 352 S.E.2d 284 (Ct. App. 1986)(to establish apparent agency, party must prove purported principal has represented another to be his agent by ......
-
§ 5-5 Master and Servant - Generally
...S.E.2d 781 (1991); Allen v. Columbia Financial Management, Ltd., 297 S.C. 481, 377 S.E.2d 352 (Ct. App. 1988); Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 S.C. 62, 352 S.E.2d 284 (Ct. App. 1986); South Carolina Insurance Co. v. James C. Greene and Co., 290 S.C. 171, 348 S.E.2d 617 (Ct. App. 1986); Crit......