Title: JM v. Shell Oil Co.
Citation: 922 S.W.2d 759
Docket Number: 78562
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: May 28, 1996

922 S.W.2d 759 (1996)
J.M., et al., Appellants,
v.
SHELL OIL COMPANY, Respondent.
No. 78562.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
May 28, 1996.
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1996.
*761 Mark E. Goodman and Sanford J. Boxerman, Clayton, for appellants.
Bruce D. Ryder, John R. Musgrave, Vincent H. Venker, II, and Daniel J. Carpenter, St. Louis, for respondent.
HOLSTEIN, Chief Justice.
Plaintiff J.M. was in the process of purchasing gasoline at a Shell convenience store and gasoline station in St. Louis County on October 25, 1992. She was abducted, sexually assaulted and shot in the head by an unidentified assailant. She was left for dead. However, she survived and brought this action. Defendant Shell Oil Company, the lessor and franchisor of the station, moved for summary judgment based on its claim that it was not a possessor of the property and had no right of control over H.T. Dunn Oil Company, the franchisee and lessee of the station. The trial court sustained the motion. Following opinion by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, this Court granted transfer. The judgment is reversed.
The record is viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movant, and the non-movant is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine, 854 S.W.2d 371, 382 (Mo. banc 1993). Where the record reasonably supports any inference other than those necessary to support a judgment for the movant, a genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant's motion for summary judgment should be overruled. Id.
Shell leases the land on which the station sits from the George Wilson Trust. Prior to March 1, 1991, Shell operated the station. In 1984, Shell had redesigned the station, adding a food mart. At that time, the attendant was moved from a cashier's kiosk in the center of the gas pumps to a place inside the food mart. There had been a number of robberies at the station prior to October of 1992, as well as other less serious crimes and disturbances at or near the station.[1]
On March 1, 1991, H.T. Dunn Oil Company leased the premises. In addition to a lease, Dunn and Shell entered into a dealer agreement. These documents contain detailed provisions regarding the operation of the station, including the following:
Shell also distributed a "Health, Safety &amp; Environment Manual" to its dealers. That manual required the reporting of robberies or customer injuries at the service station. Included in the training manuals supplied by Shell to its dealers was a "Robbery Deterrence and Safety Training Manual" covering such topics as robbery prevention, reaction to robberies and a post-robbery strategy. This manual sets out the details and the manner in which safety of the premises is to be achieved.
As part of its inspection program, Shell conducted service station health and safety reviews. One of the safety review check sheets reads in part:
Pursuant to the above agreements and policy manuals, Shell representatives inspected the station at least monthly and conducted point-by-point reviews and counseling of Dunn representatives regarding various aspects of the station operations.
Notwithstanding the dealer agreement, the lease and the policy manuals regulating details of how Dunn was to operate the station, the dealer agreement also contains the following paragraph:
The lease provides:
It is upon the basis of the last two quoted paragraphs that the trial court granted summary judgment, apparently concluding that Dunn was not a servant of Shell Oil and that Shell Oil was not a possessor of the property.
Under most circumstances, a lessor of land is not subject to liability for injuries to the business invitees of a tenant due to defects on the premises. Warner v. Fry, 228 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo.1950). The rule is not without exception, however. One such exception is the "public use" exception, which applies only to public exhibitions and entertainment contemplating the assembly of a large number of persons. 228 S.W.2d  at 731; Roth v. Zukowski, 757 S.W.2d 581, 583-84 (Mo. banc 1988). Operation of a service station does not fall within that exception. Dunlap v. Howard, 629 S.W.2d 664, 666 (Mo. App.1982). The trial court correctly concluded that Dunn, not Shell, was the "possessor" of the leased premises because Dunn was in occupation of the premises. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328E (1965).
*764 III.
Another exception to the general rule that a landlord is not liable is where the lessor exercised such control over the business operations of the leased premises that the lessee is treated as a servant of the lessor. Many factors are included in the calculus for determining if one person is the servant of another for purposes of establishing vicarious liability. However, the touchstone is whether the party sought to be held liable has the control or right to control the conduct of another in the performance of an act. Balderas v. Howe, 891 S.W.2d 871, 873-74 (Mo.App.1995); Brenner v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 158 S.W.2d 171, 174 (Mo.App. 1942); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(1)(1958). The liability of a lessor under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts of a lessee is dependent upon whether the lessor has the right to control the lessee. Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo.1963). The control or right to control must extend to the physical activities of the lessee or to the details of the manner in which the work is done by the lessee on the premises. Matteuzzi v. Columbus Partnership, L.P., 866 S.W.2d 128, 132 (Mo. banc 1993).
The negligent acts alleged in this case are that the defendants knew or should have known that the individual who abducted plaintiff was on its premises and by ordinary care could have prevented the abduction, that no security personnel were present, that no security system was available on the premises, that the design of the building was inadequate to detect criminal activity against business invitees, that there was no functioning closed-circuit television system, and that the employees were not trained to maintain adequate security for customers. Assuming, without deciding, that the above allegations give rise to a duty by Dunn to provide security for customers such as J.M., the critical question becomes whether Shell had the control or right to control Dunn in performing that duty.
Shell argues that this Court should construe the operator's agreement contract to establish as a matter of law that Shell had neither control nor the right to control Dunn's activities. However, the contractual terms are internally contradictory. Some provisions declare there is no agency or master/servant relationship. Other provisions give detailed guidance on such matters as reporting crime, architectural design, approved uniforms, loitering, lighting, display of products, vending machines, hours of operation, adequacy and training of staff, safety and orderliness of the premises, and routine inspections to ensure compliance with Shell's standard operating policies. Moreover, Shell could unilaterally change those policies by simply amending the contents of the "Image Excellence Book." At minimum, the agreements give rise to a factual question as to whether Shell had a right of control over Dunn in providing security for customers of the station. Plaintiff must still persuade a factfinder that Shell controlled or had the right to control Dunn's provision of security measures. Bowman v. McDonald's Corp., 916 S.W.2d 270, 286 (Mo.App.1995).
Shell also argues that the reservation of right by a lessor to make repairs or improvements is insufficient to give rise to liability under the theory of respondeat superior. Assuming it is true that a landlord who reserves a right, but not a duty, to inspect, make repairs or construct improvements is not vicariously liable to the tenant's invitees for conditions on the premises, the agreements here involve far more than a mere reservation of those rights. Shell had extensive rights to regulate and actually did regulate many of the day-to-day activities at the station that are normally considered in the nature of business management, including activities that relate to customer security. These details give rise to a factual dispute as to Shell's right to control Dunn's provision of security at the station. The motion for summary judgment on that issue should have been overruled.
Plaintiff argues three additional grounds of liability. The first is that Shell *765 was directly negligent when it redesigned the station in 1984 because it should have foreseen the potential of future crimes against customers of future dealers operating the station and taken those crimes into account in its design. No authority is cited for this dubious basis of liability and none is found.[2] In Missouri, a duty does not exist to protect business invitees from the criminal acts of third persons absent a "special relationship" or "special circumstances." Miller v. South County Ctr., Inc., 857 S.W.2d 507, 510 (Mo. App.1973). The relationship between the designer of a building and a business invitee is not one of those previously recognized as a "special relationship" or "special circumstance." Id. at 511. We need not and, therefore, do not recognize such relationship as a basis for liability in this case.
Another basis of direct liability claimed by plaintiff is that under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (1965), Shell failed in its duty to "render services ... necessary for the protection of a third person," when Shell undertook to train Dunn's employees. An undertaking to train employees of another, even in matters of security, is not equivalent to an undertaking to protect business invitees of the employer from crimes. It is conceivable that pursuant to § 324A, one who undertakes training for an employer may be directly liable under the "special circumstance" where the trainer gives an express assurance that business invitees of the employer will be safe. See Miller v. South County Ctr., 857 S.W.2d 507, 512-13 (Mo.App.1993); Thiele v. Rieter, 838 S.W.2d 441 (Mo.App.1992); Keenan v. Miriam Found., 784 S.W.2d 298, 303 (Mo.App. 1990). However, Shell's undertaking to provide training was not accompanied by its express assurance that Dunn's invitees would be safe. For that reason, this claim of direct liability fails.
The third argument is that as a matter of public policy, this Court should create a presumption that a franchisor has the same liability as a franchisee for the security of the franchisee's customers because the franchisor has the power to select and control those who operate its businesses. As previously noted, the general rules of agency and tort provide adequate guidance for vicarious liability. No special rules for the liability of franchisors need be adopted.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BENTON, LIMBAUGH, ROBERTSON, COVINGTON and WHITE, JJ., concur.
PRICE, J., not sitting.
[1]  Earlier motions for summary judgment filed on behalf of both Dunn and Shell asserted that the allegations were insufficient to support a breach of duty by possessors of land toward a business invitee arising out of the criminal acts of a third party. That issue is not before this Court on appeal and, therefore, is not addressed. The most recent discussion of the question by this Court is found in Madden v. C &amp; K Barbecue Carryout, Inc., 758 S.W.2d 59, 61 (Mo. banc 1988). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344 (1965).
[2]  The only case cited, Chubb Group of Ins. v. C.F. Murphy &amp; Assoc., 656 S.W.2d 766 (Mo.App. 1983), involves a collapsing building, not a criminal act by a third party.