SHAWN SYDENHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS ADNA SANTIAGO AND GULF OIL COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff Sydenham appealed a summary judgment dismissing his negligence action against Gulf Oil Company for injuries from a tire explosion at a franchised service station. The court affirmed, holding that an oil company does not confer apparent authority on a service station operator merely by allowing use of its trade name and selling products to the station.
Gulf Oil Company is not subject to vicarious liability for negligence at the service station based on apparent authority merely because it allowed use of its trade name, accepted its credit cards, and sold gasoline products to the operator. The use of trade name and logo alone does not confer apparent authority.
[1] An oil company does not confer apparent authority, subjecting itself to vicarious liability for negligence, upon a retail service station merely by allowing the use of it…
[2] Reliance upon national advertising of competence in service station operations, coupled with the display of a corporate logo on the premises, does not alone establish app…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An oil company does not confer apparent authority, subjecting itself to vicarious liability for negligence, upon a retail service station by allowing the use of its trade name and selling its products to the station.”
The core holding establishing that trade name use and product sales alone do not create apparent authority for vicarious liability purposes.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSydenham was injured when a truck tire exploded while he was unloading it. The tire had allegedly been negligently repaired at a Gulf service station …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Apparent Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
The plaintiff in a negligence action appeals from a final summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Gulf Oil Company.
The plaintiff was injured when he was unloading a truck tire which exploded. The explosion allegedly was caused by the negligent manner in which the tire had been repaired at a Gulf service station just prior to the accident.
The service station was operated by Santiago who purchased gasoline and oil products from Gulf and leased a “Gulf” sign. Gulf credit cards were accepted at this station. Santiago purchased all of his tires, batteries, and other accessories from local distributors other than Gulf and all of the other equipment in the station, including the gas pumps, were owned by Santiago. Gulf had no control over the operations of the service station aside from the gasoline sales.
The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the Gulf Oil Company was vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the service station employees who performed the repairs on the plaintiff’s tire. He alleges that he relied upon Gulf’s representations, through national advertising, of competence in the area of service station operations and, coupled with the Gulf corporate logo on the premises, he was led to believe that Santiago had apparent authority to act as Gulf’s agent.
The final summary judgment is affirmed on the authority of Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1960). An oil company does not confer apparent authority, subjecting itself to vicarious liability for negligence, upon a retail service station by allowing the use of its trade name and selling its products to the station. This holding is consistent with our recent decision in Ortega v. General Motors Corporation, 392 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) in which we declined to hold General Motors Corporation liable on an apparent authority theory solely because a truck retailer displayed GMC signs and trademarks at its place of business. We are also mindful of the decision in Fernandez v. Valle, 364 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); however, we find it distinguishable. There, the issue was actual control by a principal over an agent. The issue presented to us is simply one of apparent authority of an agent to act on behalf of a principal and is answered by Cawthon.
AFFIRMED.
BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1983)…ed the jury’s verdict, and we approve the portion of the district court opinion dealing with OEP’s liability. Turning to HJ, we granted its petition for review because of conflict between the instant district court opinion and Sydenham v. Santiago, 392 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), on the issue of apparent authority. In Sydenham a tire repaired at Santiago’s Gulf Service Station exploded and injured the plaintiff. Sydenham sued both Santiago, who owned the station, and Gulf Oil Co., whose products Santiago…
-
Cardounel v. Shell OIL Co., 397 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ndez' was not an agent or [*329] employee, but was an independent contractor. Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); McMillion v. Sinclair Refining Company, 236 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Sydenham v. Santiago, 392 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Nelson v. Shell Oil Company, 396 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Miller v. Sinclair Refining Company, 268 F. 2d 114 (5th Cir. 1959). The trial court would also be correct in its ruling even if Mendez, the operator, was an employe…
-
Bransford v. Berman, 601 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…. 4th DCA), dismissed, 589 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1991). Mobil owned the station and prominently displayed its logo there in order to induce customers to patronize the premises. We are not unaware of an earlier case out of this court, Sydenham v. Santiago, 392 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), limited by Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1983), which might lead to a contrary result. However, in Sydenham, the oil company did not own the station and had no control over it, aside from gasoline…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Rosa v. Ortega, 392 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Fernandez v. Valle, 364 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)