ANGEL CARDOUNEL AND MERCY CARDOUNEL, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHELL OIL COMPANY, APPELLEE
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.
Shell Oil Company was sued for damages when a service station operator shot the plaintiff after an altercation. The court affirmed summary judgment for Shell, holding that the operator was an independent contractor and that mere knowledge of a gun on the premises, without knowledge of specific dangerous propensities, does not create liability.
Shell is not liable because: (1) Mendez was an independent contractor, not an agent or employee of Shell; and (2) even if he were an employee, mere knowledge that Mendez had a gun would not impose liability absent knowledge of particular facts demonstrating dangerous propensities.
[1] A principal is generally not liable for the torts of an independent contractor.
[2] Knowledge that an employee or agent possesses a weapon on the premises does not, by itself, establish notice of dangerous propensities sufficient to hold the principal li…
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 trial court was correct on the theory that Mendez was not an agent or employee, but was an independent contractor.”
Establishes that the operator's status as an independent contractor was dispositive of the principal liability claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAngel Cardounel entered a Shell-owned service station (leased to operator Mendez) to obtain water for his overheating vehicle. His car blocked access …
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 Vicarious Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Angel Cardounel pulled into a service station owned by Shell Petroleum Co., leased to Mendez, not to purchase service station products but to secure some water for his overheating vehicle. His automobile blocked access to the pumps; he and Mendez got into an altercation, resulting in Mendez shooting Cardounel.
Cardounel and his wife brought suit, alleging that Shell (as the owner of the station) was the employer or principal of Mendez and that its agents knew that he (Mendez) had a gun on the premises and, therefore, knew or should have known Mendez had violent or dangerous propensities.1 The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the oil company. We affirm.
The trial court was correct on the theory that Mendez' was not an agent or 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 employee or agent.2 The mere knowledge that Mendez had a gun on the premises3 would not make the oil company liable, unless it knew of particular facts that would have put it on notice of his dangerous propensities.4
Therefore, the summary judgment under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
. The appellants herein rely heavily on the case of Jax Liquors, Inc. v. Hall, 344 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We find that case not to be decisive of the issue herein. In the Jax case, supra, the evidence showed that Jax sought and obtained armed security guards to preserve order and deal with unruly patrons, and that Jax had exercised a right of control concerning the manner in which the guard performed his duties. The instant case contains no evidence of this nature.
. We do not here decide the status between the oil company and the operators, because we do not think it is necessary to a determination of this opinion.
. The complaint alleged that the station was located in a “high crime area” which, under the current circumstances, may well have justified the operator having a gun on the premises.
.The plaintiffs made bare conclusions as to the company knowing or that it should have known of the operator’s dangerous propensities, but failed to disclose any facts that would have supported such a conclusion. See and compare: Lombardy v. Stees, 132 Colo. 570, 290 P. 2d 1110 (1956); Strawder v. Harrall, 251 So. 2d 514 (La.App.1971); Martin v. Jones, 302 Mich. 355, 4 N.W. 2d 686 (1942); Wellman v. Pacer Oil Company, 504 S.W. 2d 55 (Mo.1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fisherman's Paradise, Inc. v. Greenfield, 417 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…s condition (at least [*308] on premises where public use is invited) unless it was not discoverable on reasonable inspection. Mai Kai, Inc. v. Colucci, 205 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1967); Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1959); Cardounel v. Shell Oil Co., 397 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), appeal dismissed, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981); Forte Towers South, Inc. v. Hill York Sales Corp., 312 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Non-delegable duties may result from contractual obligations. Irving v. Doctors Hospital of Lake…
-
Bransford v. Berman, 601 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…the defendant Berman. However, as to Mobil Oil, I would affirm on the authority of Sydenham v. Santiago, 392 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See also Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1983) and Cardounel v. Shell Oil Co., 397 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed by 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981). In my judgment Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne does not extend liability to the extent that it may be imposed, through an agency concept, simply because a well-known company contracts with a tr…
-
Simpson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 401 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Cardounel v. Shell Oil Company, 397 So. 2d 328 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); De La Torre v. Chevron, U. S. A., Inc., 374 So. 2d 1046 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Perry v. Cities Service Oil Company, 239 So. 2d 869 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla.2d DCA 1960).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Rollins A. Miller v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 268 F.2d 114 (5th Cir. 1959)
- Darcell Nelson v. Shell OIL Co., 396 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- McMILLION v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 236 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Sydenham v. Santiago, 392 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- JAX Liquors, Inc. v. Hall, 344 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)