Opinion
No. 5-849 / 04-1896
Filed January 19, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, William J. Pattinson, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from the district court order granting summary judgment to defendant on her claim of negligence. AFFIRMED.
Jason T. Madden of Bradshaw, Proctor, Fowler Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
Teodore F. Sporer of Sporer Ilic, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Plaintiff Darnell Miller appeals from the district court order granting summary judgment to Defendant Casey's General Stores, Inc. on her claim of negligence. She contends the court erred in finding Casey's General Stores, Inc. was not a possessor of the premise as a matter of law. Because the district court did not err, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. On February 9, 2001, Miller fell near a fuel island at a Casey's convenience store in Boone and was injured. On December 31, 2002, she filed a petition alleging Casey's General Stores, Inc. was negligent in failing to remove ice from the area around the fuel island, in failing to adequately sand or treat the area, in failing to warn customers of the danger, and in failing "to remove the gutter and spout so that it would not dispense water directly in front of the gasoline pump during the winter months." Casey's General Stores, Inc. answered on January 28, 2003, denying the allegations contained in Miller's petition and setting forth the affirmative defenses that Miller's injuries were "the fault of one or more third party entities not presently in this lawsuit" and that Casey's General Stores, Inc. was not the owner of the property in question and therefore not a proper party to the lawsuit.
After the expiration of the statute of limitations on Miller's claim, Miller learned that Casey's Marketing Company was the title holder to the property at issue.
In May of 1995, Casey's General Stores, Inc. and Casey's Marketing Company signed a license agreement in which Casey's Marketing Company was made a licensee of Casey's General Stores, Inc.
On January 26, 2004, Casey's General Stores, Inc. moved for summary judgment asserting it neither owned nor operated the Casey's convenience store where Miller fell. Miller resisted, claiming Casey's General Stores, Inc. was a "possessor" of the land and thereby liable for physical injuries caused to business invitees as a result of dangerous conditions on the property. Miller further argued that the question of whether Casey's General Stores, Inc. was a possessor of the land was a fact question for the jury.
On June 11, 2004, the district court granted Casey General Stores, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. It concluded the record did not establish as a matter of law that Casey's General Stores, Inc. was a possessor of the store at issue for premises liability purposes. Miller's motion to enlarge the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law was denied.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
We review rulings on motions for summary judgment for errors at law. Sain v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 626 N.W.2d 115, 121 (Iowa 2001). The record before the district court is reviewed to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact existed and whether the district court correctly applied the law. Id. We review the facts in the light most favorable to the party resisting the motion. McIlravy v. North River Ins. Co., 653 N.W.2d 323, 328 (Iowa 2002). The resisting party has the burden of showing a material issue of fact is in dispute. Id. The issue of whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care arising out of the parties' relationship is always a matter of law for the court. Hoffnagle v. McDonald's Corp., 522 N.W.2d 808, 811 (Iowa 1994).
III. Analysis.
Miller contends the district court erred in determining Casey's General Stores, Inc. is not a possessor of the premises as a matter of law.
Whether a person is a possessor of land is a threshold issue to determining liability. Id. at 813. The answer is determined by the extent of the person's retained control of the property. Id. A duty of care is imposed only when the franchisor retains control of day-to-day operations. Id. Retaining the right to inspect the quality of the operation and control to the extent necessary to implement that right will not give rise to a legal duty. Id. Likewise, franchisor's authority to insure the uniformity and standardization of products and services offered by the franchisee does not affect the control of daily operations. Id. at 814. Rather, a duty should be imposed only upon a person who can remedy an unsafe procedure or who can prevent an unsafe practice. Id.
The district court summarized the provisions of the 1995 license agreement as follows:
The agreement also obligated Casey's Marketing Company to comply with certain minimum standards of quality that Casey's General Stores, Inc. established with respect to "products and services offered for sale on the License Premises and all furnishings, supplies, and equipment used in connection with such business." Casey's General Stores, Inc. also retained the right to enter upon the store in question for the purpose of examining the store and inspecting and checking operations, all to determine whether the business was being conducted in accordance with the minimum standards established by Casey's General Stores, Inc.
Further, under the License Agreement, Casey's Marketing Company was to "maintain the interior and exterior of the building(s) and all other improvements to the License Premises in a safe, structurally sound, clean, orderly and sanitary condition satisfactory to the company."
In the event of a default on the part of Casey's Marketing Company, Casey's General Stores, Inc. was entitled to terminate the agreement upon notice and, after a "finding of default by a court of competent jurisdiction, to assume the operation and management of the business conducted pursuant to the license herein granted for the account of the Licensee, for so long as the default continues."
The agreement also allowed Casey's General Stores, Inc. to establish rules and procedures with respect to protecting the property from the environmental hazards and other dangers associated with the storage and dispensing of gasoline upon the premises.
Other provisions in the License Agreement obligated Casey's General Stores, Inc. to provide Casey's Marketing Company with "advice as to operations, financing, purchasing, and pricing as may be reasonably requested by [Casey's Marketing Company.]"
Finally, the agreement indicated that the parties thereto were not to be considered as joint venturers, partners, or agents of the other.
Based on these provisions, the district court concluded as a matter of law that Casey's General Stores, Inc. did not retain sufficient control over the Boone store's day-to-day operations to impose a duty of care. The court found Casey's General Stores, Inc. had only established minimum standards to insure uniformity and standardization of business operations amongst all the stores that use the Casey's General Stores name.
Miller argues Casey General Stores, Inc.'s control rises to the level of control of day-to-day operations. She notes the specifications detailed in the employee training manual, provided by Casey's General Stores, Inc., which she contends provide "far greater specification of even the most miniscule and mundane of daily operations." Specifically, Miller notes the portion of the training manual that directed employees to remove snow from sidewalks, the pump island, and the area around the pump island once accumulation reached one inch. The training manual further instructs employees to place sand or a specific snow-melting agent on any ice that accumulated in those areas. Miller contends Casey's General Stores, Inc.'s control is therefore substantial.
It is evident from the license agreement that while Casey's General Stores, Inc. could establish certain minimum standards of quality, responsibility for maintaining the facilities and the premises was that of Casey's Marketing Company. While the training manual directs employee actions, it does not detract from Casey's Marketing Company's responsibility for the premises. As in Hoffnagle, the day to day operations of the store are in the hands of the franchisee or licencee. Casey's General Stores, Inc. could only become responsible for the day to day operations if it assumed the operation after a default by Casey's Marketing Company. As a matter of law, Casey's General Stores, Inc. is not a possessor of the Boone store, and therefore had no legal duty to Miller. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting Casey General Stores, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and we affirm.