Willman v. Texaco, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 8591,8591 |
| Citation | 535 S.W.2d 774 |
| Parties | Ruby WILLMAN, Appellant, v. TEXACO, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Bowers & Cotten, Claude W. Pete Harland, Lubbock, for appellant.
Crenshaw, Dupree & Milam, J. Orville Smith, Lubbock, for appellee.
Plaintiff Ruby Willman filed suit for personal injuries, which she alleged occurred when she was struck by a falling pipe at the Richland Hills Texaco Station. Defendants are Claude Faubus, Texaco, Inc., and Sam E. Fox. Faubus was the operator leasing the station from Texaco, Inc. Fox was one of two owners of the land who leased the building and land to Texaco, Inc., and was Texaco's consignee. Fox also had an agreement with Faubus concerning the operation of the station. Texaco, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Faubus was an independent contractor. Plaintiff answered contending that the written agreements between Texaco, Inc. and Faubus were a sham and subterfuge, and that Texaco controlled the details of Faubus' operations in such a way as to create a master-servant relationship and to make Texaco, Inc. liable for the negligence of Faubus and his employees. The trial court granted Texaco, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and severed the cause of action against Texaco, Inc. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment that she take nothing from Texaco, Inc. Affirmed.
In a summary judgment proceeding, the question is not whether the summary judgment proof raises fact issues with reference to essential elements of a cause of action, but whether the summary judgment proof establishes as a matter of law that there is no genuine issue of fact as to one or more of the essential elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. The burden of proof is on the movant, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact are resolved against him. All conflicts in the evidence are disregarded, and the evidence which tends to support the position of the party opposing the motion is accepted as true. Farley v. Prudential Insurance Company, 480 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex.1972).
In the case before us, the burden is on Texaco, Inc., to establish that there is no fact issue that it had a master-servant relationship with Claude Faubus d/b/a Richland Hills Texaco Station.
The written agreements between Texaco, Inc. and Faubus are substantially the same as those which the Supreme Court considered in Texas Co. v. Wheat, 140 Tex. 468, 168 S.W.2d 632 (1943). The written instruments were the 'Lease Contract,' 'Letter Modifying Rental Clause,' and a 'Sales Contract.' In Wheat, the Supreme Court affirmed an instructed verdict for Texas Company and held that the contract as evidenced by those written agreements created the relation of landlord and tenant, and not the relation of master and servant.
Nevertheless, the form of the written agreement will not prevent the existence of a master-servant relationship if such agreement is a mere sham, cloak, or subterfuge designed to conceal the true legal relationship between the parties. Newspapers, Inc. v. Love, 380 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.1964). Plaintiff, Ruby Willman, contends that the lease between Texaco and Faubus was a mere sham or subterfuge and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Exxon Corp. v. Tidwell
...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.); Space City Oil Co. v. McGilvray, 519 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1975, no writ); Daniels v. She......
-
O'Neill v. Startex Petroleum, Inc.
...judgt corr.). But see Edwards v. Neely Oil, Inc., 556 S.W.2d 114 (Tex.Civ.App.1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Willman v. Texaco, Inc., 535 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Civ.App.1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In Daniels v. Shell Oil Company, 485 S.W.2d 948 (Tex.Civ.App.1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.), summary judgment for ......
-
Edwards v. Neely Oil, Inc.
...143 Tex. 145, 182 S.W.2d 996 (1944); Texas Co. v. Wheat, 140 Tex. 468, 168 S.W.2d 632 (1943) and Willman v. Texaco, Inc., 535 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1976, writ ref'd n. r. e.) and the relationship between Neely Oil and Morgan and Whaley is that of landlord and tenant and not that......
-
Ahn v. Texaco, Inc.
...and Wells. Appellants have failed to show how an agency relationship between Wells and Texaco existed. Willman v. Texaco, 535 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Point of Error No. One is Appellant asserts liability under the federal regulation which provides that "......