## Facts

- Gerald E. Hoover and Jule B. Hoover (plaintiffs) were injured in a fire at a service station while gasoline was being pumped into their vehicle.
- The station was owned by Sun Oil Company (Sun) and operated by James F. Barone under a written lease and a separate dealer’s agreement.
- Plaintiffs alleged the fire was caused by the negligence of a station employee and sought to hold Sun liable on the theory that Barone was Sun’s agent.
- The lease was terminable by either party upon notice and set rent in part by reference to the volume of gasoline sold.
- Under the dealer’s agreement, Barone purchased petroleum products from Sun, and Sun loaned equipment and advertising materials for use at the station.
- The dealer’s agreement allowed Barone to sell products from competing companies, but required Sun products to be sold under the Sun label and prohibited mixing Sun products with competitors’ products.
- The station displayed large signs advertising Sun products, and Barone’s name was also posted as the proprietor.
- A Sun representative, Peterson, made weekly sales visits; in addition to selling Sun products, he discussed business matters with Barone and offered operational advice.
- Barone was not required to follow Peterson’s advice, set his own hours, bore the risk of profit or loss, and had sole authority to hire, fire, and supervise station employees.
- Sun moved for summary judgment, arguing that Barone was an independent contractor and that Sun therefore was not responsible for the employee’s alleged negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the lease and dealer’s agreement and the parties’ course of dealing, Barone operated the station as Sun’s servant/agent such that Sun could be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of Barone’s employee.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted in favor of Sun Oil Company.
- The court held that Barone operated the service station as an independent contractor/tenant, not as Sun’s servant or agent for purposes of respondeat superior.
- Because Sun did not have the right to control the day-to-day physical details of station operations, Sun could not be held liable for the employee’s alleged negligence that caused the fire.

## Legal Principles

- Respondeat superior turns on whether the alleged principal has the right to control the manner and means of the work, especially the physical details of performance.
- Contractual terms that protect a supplier’s products and brand—such as signage, labeled sales requirements, and prohibitions on mixing products—generally show quality and trademark protection, not control of daily operations.
- A dealer’s independent responsibility for hours, staffing, supervision, and business risk is strong evidence that the dealer is an independent contractor rather than a servant.
- Regular visits by a supplier’s representative and the giving of business advice, without any requirement that the dealer follow that advice, does not establish the right of control needed for vicarious liability.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the undisputed facts show no genuine dispute that the alleged principal lacked the right to control the operative details that would make the tortfeasor’s conduct attributable to it.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Sun’s lease and dealer relationship with Barone, including brand and product controls and weekly visits by a Sun representative, did not give Sun the right to control the physical details of how the station was run; because Barone retained control over staffing and daily operations and carried the business risk, he was an independent contractor, and Sun was not vicariously liable for injuries caused by the station employee’s alleged negligence.


Hoover v. Sun Oil Company, 58 Del. 553, 212 A.2d 214 (1965)