## Facts

- Mrs. A.C. Love brought her automobile to a service station in Austin, Texas, owned by Humble Oil & Refining Co. and operated by W.T. Schneider under a “Commission Agency Agreement,” and left it for servicing.
- Before any station employee touched the car, it rolled by gravity off the station premises, crossed the adjacent street, and struck George F. Martin and his two minor daughters as they walked into their home yard downhill from the station.
- The jury found Mrs. Love negligent for failing to secure the car (including failing to set the emergency brake properly or leave the car in gear).
- The jury found negligence in the station’s operation for failing to inspect whether the brake was set or gears engaged, failing to set the brake, and leaving the car unattended on the driveway.
- The jury found Mrs. Love had delivered the car into the station’s custody before it began rolling, the accident was not unavoidable, and neither defendant’s negligence was the sole proximate cause.
- Humble contended Schneider was an independent contractor; Martin argued Humble retained sufficient control over station operations to create a master–servant relationship.

## Issues

1. Whether Schneider operated the station as an independent contractor or as Humble’s servant/agent based on Humble’s retained right of control, making Humble vicariously liable for negligence in station operations.
2. Whether, given concurrent negligence findings, either Humble or Mrs. Love was entitled to full indemnity from the other rather than being limited to statutory contribution.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment holding Humble and Mrs. Love liable to Martin and his daughters for injuries proximately caused by their negligence.
- The court held the relationship between Humble and Schneider was master–servant for tort purposes because Humble retained and exercised substantial control over station operations, despite contractual characterizations.
- The court rejected Humble’s attempt to avoid liability on an independent-contractor theory.
- The court rejected full indemnity for either defendant against the other, leaving allocation between them to statutory contribution rights applicable to joint tortfeasors.

## Legal Principles

- The existence of a master–servant relationship turns on the right of control over the details of work and operation, not on contractual labels.
- When a principal retains substantial operational and financial control over a retail outlet’s operation, the operator may be treated as the principal’s servant/agent, making the principal vicariously liable for negligence occurring in the course of that operation.
- Concurrent negligence by multiple actors supports joint liability to the injured party; absent a basis for shifting the entire loss to one actor, indemnity is unavailable and the parties are limited to statutory contribution.

## Conclusion

Because Humble retained substantial control over the station’s operation, negligence by the station in failing to inspect and secure the customer’s car was imputable to Humble, making Humble and the car owner jointly liable for injuries caused by the car’s rolling, with no full indemnity available between them.


Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Martin, 148 Tex. 175, 222 S.W.2d 995 (Tex. 1949)