DARCELL NELSON, APPELLANT,
v.
SHELL OIL COMPANY ET AL., 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.
The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment for Shell Oil Company, ruling that the service station operator was an independent contractor, not an agent. Therefore, Shell was not vicariously liable for the employee's tortious actions.
The court held that the OK Shell service station operator was an independent contractor as a matter of law. Consequently, Shell Oil Company is not vicariously liable for the employee's actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
[1] A principal is not vicariously liable for the tortious acts of an independent contractor.
[2] The right of control over the mode of doing the work is the primary factor in determining whether a party is an independent contractor or an agent/servant.
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“the primary factor in determining the independent contractor question in a case such as this is “the right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for.””
This quote establishes the key legal test used by the court to determine independent contractor status.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff was injured by an employee of the OK Shell service station. The plaintiff sued Shell Oil Company, arguing vicarious liability. The trial…
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 Right To Control Test cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The plaintiff-appellant was injured by a tortious act of an employee of the OK Shell service station.
We affirm the summary judgment entered for the Shell Oil Company on the ground that the operators of OK were, as a matter of law, independent contractors, rather than agents or servants of Shell, and that it was therefore not vicariously liable for the acts of the employee under the respondeat superior doctrine. Miller v. Sinclair Refining Co., 268 F. 2d 114 (5th Cir. 1959); Gulf Refining Co. v. Wilkinson, 94 Fla. 664, 114 So. 503 (1927); De La Torre v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 374 So. 2d 1046 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) (per curiam), cert, denied, 385 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1980); McMillion v. Sinclair Refining Co., 236 So. 2d 151 (Fla.lst DCA 1970); Drum v. Pure Oil Co., 184 So. 2d 196 (Fla.4th DCA 1966); Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla.2d DCA 1960).
As the court said in the Cawthon case, 124 So. 2d at 519, the primary factor in determining the independent contractor question in a case such as this is “the right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for.” See generally, Mumby v. Bowden, 25 Fla. 454, 6 So. 453 (1889); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Kendall, 88 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1956); Variety Children's Hospital, Inc. v. Perkins, 382 So. 2d 331, 335 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
On this key point of the extent of Shell’s control over OK’s method of operation on a day-to-day basis, the facts are strikingly similar to those in Ortega v. General Motors Corp., 392 So. 2d 40, 42-43 (Fla.4th DCA 1980).
We approve and adopt Judge Wetherington’s excellent discussion of the issue at 392 So. 2d 42-43, and follow the Ortega holding that summary judgment for the putative employer was appropriately entered. On the other hand, Fernandez v. Valle, 364 So. 2d 835 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert, denied, 373 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1979), on which the appellant relies almost exclusively, is not determinative. The degree of control which could be exercised by the oil company over the operations of the station in Fernandez was markedly greater than in the case at bar.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schoettle v. State, 513 So. 2d 1299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…burden in a section 120.57(1) disputed-fact hearing in showing that the United States — rather than the two private companies — controlled the method and manner in which the work at the George Seitz School was performed. Cf Nelson v. Shell Oil Co., 396 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.1981) (low degree of control by oil company over the daily operations of a service station precluded a finding of vicarious liability as to the company for the acts of the employee of the station oper…
-
Cardounel v. Shell OIL Co., 397 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…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 employee or agent.2 The mere knowledge that Mendez had a gun on the prem…
-
Thomas v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 429 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Nelson v. Shell Oil Company, 396 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Gulf Ref. Co. v. Wilkinson, 94 Fla. 664 (Fla. 1927)
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Mrs. Mary Kendall, 88 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1956)
- Variety Child's. Hosp., Inc. v. Perkins, 382 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Mumby v. Bowden & Rosenthal, 25 Fla. 454 (Fla. 1889)
- Rosa v. Ortega, 392 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Rollins A. Miller v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 268 F.2d 114 (5th Cir. 1959)
- DE LA Torre v. Chevron, 374 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Dade Cnty. v. United Res., Inc., 374 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Fernandez v. Valle, 364 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)