ARNOLD E. MCMILLION, APPELLANT,
v.
SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
McMillion appealed a directed verdict in favor of Sinclair Refining Company after a collision involving an oil delivery truck operated by Eli P. Roberts, a Sinclair marketer. The court affirmed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish Sinclair's control over Roberts or liability for the accident.
The court held that insufficient evidence of Sinclair's control over Roberts existed to warrant submission to a jury, and the directed verdict in Sinclair's favor was proper. Sinclair could not be held liable based on the evidence presented.
[1] A directed verdict is proper when the plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact for the jury.
[2] A company is not liable for the actions of a local marketer if the marketer owns the vehicles, controls the drivers, and dictates routes and schedules, even if the market…
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 type of truck, the size of truck and the routes and schedules were completely under the control of Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts employed the drivers of said trucks, retained control of their wages, times of work and the right to fire and generally control. Sinclair had no voice in this phase of the operation.”
Establishes that Roberts, not Sinclair, retained operational control, which was dispositive to the liability question.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcMillion was injured in a collision involving an oil delivery truck allegedly operated by Eli P. Roberts, who marketed Sinclair products. Roberts own…
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 Partnership cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an adverse final judgment based upon a directed verdict entered by the Circuit Court of Leon County (Walker, J.) at the close of plaintiff’s case.
The only point on appeal was whether or not there was sufficient evidence on the matter of Sinclair’s control of Eli P. Roberts, (a local marketer for Sinclair) to create a issue of fact for the jury, thus precluding entry of a directed verdict for the defendant Sinclair.
From the facts as shown, it appears that the appellant here, who was plaintiff below, was injured as a result of a collision between a pickup truck in which the plain*152tiff was riding and an oil delivery truck, alleged to be a “Sinclair Oil delivery truck”. The complaint alleges that the truck was owned by Eli P. Roberts d/b/a Eli Roberts Sinclair Marketer, but was being used in a joint venture with Sinclair Refining Company. By later amendment to the complaint, the plaintiff alleged a partnership and joint venture between Eli P. Roberts and Sinclair Refining Co. and in the alternative that Eli P. Roberts d/b/a Eli Roberts Sinclair Marketer, was acting as agent, servant, factor or employee of .Sinclair Refining Company.
The facts developed that Eli P. Roberts, with consent of the court, settled with the plaintiff, without prejudice to plaintiff proceeding against Sinclair. Order to this effect was entered and the cause proceeded to trial against Sinclair only. This appeal involves Sinclair only, also. Also it was shown by the evidence that Eli P. Roberts did market Sinclair products, had Sinclair’s color and name on the trucks, but admittedly, the trucks were owned by Mr. Roberts. The type of truck, the size of truck and the routes and schedules were completely under the control of Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts employed the drivers of said trucks, retained control of their wages, times of work and the right to fire and generally control. Sinclair had no voice in this phase of the operation.
At the close of plaintiff’s case, the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict as to its liability, hence this appeal.
We have carefully reviewed the testimony, records and briefs, and given due consideration to the able arguments of respective counsel, and have concluded that the law as laid down in Gulf Refining Co. v. Wilkinson, 94 Fla. 664, 114 So. 503 and Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Fla.App., 124 So.2d 517, should control our decision in this case. The facts in said cases are fairly similar to the facts in this case and we agree with the trial court that no liability on the part of Sinclair was shown to exist. We therefore affirm the judgment appealed from.
CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sapp v. City OF Tallahassee, 348 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…perly alleging control and domination on the part of the franchisor. See Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1960); Drum v. Pure Oil Company, 184 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); McMillion v. Sinclair Refining Company, 236 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).4 Ms. Sapp should have an opportunity to pursue her discovery and establish what, if any, direct control Holiday Inns, Inc. exercised over the operations of the hotel, particularly in security matters. This of course should not…
-
DE LA Torre v. Chevron, 374 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ffirmed. Gulf Refining Co. v. Wilkinson, 94 Fla. 664, 114 So. 503 (1927); Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Drum v. Pure Oil Company, 184 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); McMillion v. Sinclair Refining Company, 236 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). Compare Fernandez v. Valle, 364 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).…
-
Darcell Nelson v. Shell OIL Co., 396 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…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 indepen…
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
- Gulf Ref. Co. v. Wilkinson, 94 Fla. 664 (Fla. 1927)
- Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 124 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)