Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lawrence Dixson and wife, Mary Dixson v. Atlantic Soft Drink Company, also D/B/A Pepsi Cola Company
Citations: 980 S.W.2d 200; 1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 159Docket: 03A01-9709-CV-00417
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; March 3, 1998; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
At approximately 1:00 AM on Christmas morning in 1995, a stolen pickup truck from Atlantic Soft Drink Company's secured parking lot crashed into the residence of Lawrence and Mary Dixson, causing property damage and personal injuries. The Dixsons claimed the company was negligent for leaving the keys in the unlocked truck and for inadequate security measures. They sought to hold the company liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, asserting the driver was an employee or agent of the company. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Atlantic Soft Drink Company, dismissing the complaint. Key facts included that the parking lot was enclosed by a chain link fence with barbed wire, and that vehicles were typically secured inside with keys left in inconspicuous places. The stolen truck's driver fled the scene, wearing a Pepsi-branded jacket, but was not identified. The plaintiffs' respondeat superior claim was not directly contested on appeal, but the court found it lacking merit, noting that even if the driver was an employee, he was not acting within the scope of his employment when stealing the vehicles. To establish negligence, the plaintiffs needed to prove a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and a direct causal link to their injuries. The court concluded that the evidence did not support these elements of negligence. The Supreme Court defines 'duty' as the legal obligation of a defendant to uphold a reasonable standard of care to protect against unreasonable risks of harm. The evidence of a Pepsi logo on the driver’s clothing is insufficient to infer employment, as making such an inference would lack rational basis. For summary judgment, all facts and reasonable inferences must favor the plaintiffs, leading to the assumption that the truck's keys were left in the ignition. However, the court finds that the defendant's actions did not fall below the reasonable person standard. The defendant's security measures—a locked, fenced compound—were deemed adequate to prevent theft, negating liability. The court draws a distinction from McClenahan v. Cooley, where the keys were left in a car in a public lot, noting that the current case involved a private, secured area where theft would require extraordinary force. The court emphasizes that liability depends on numerous circumstantial factors and concludes that the totality of circumstances supports the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant. The trial court's judgment is affirmed, and costs are assessed to the appellants.