Asbell v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.

Citations: 497 S.E.2d 260; 230 Ga. App. 700; 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 776; 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 204Docket: A97A2354

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; February 9, 1998; Georgia; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Elizabeth Asbell, as administratrix of James Douglas Hill's estate, along with Eddie and Robin Huntley, filed a lawsuit against BP Exploration Oil, Inc. following the shooting incidents at two BP service stations in Georgia. Hill was killed during a robbery attempt at the Northside Drive BP on October 24, 1993, while Eddie Huntley was injured in a separate robbery at the Headland Drive BP on November 30, 1993. The trial court granted BP's summary judgment, which the plaintiffs appealed. 

The court determined that BP had fully relinquished control over the service stations to independent dealers under Dealer Lease and Supply Agreements, thereby not participating in the operation or management of the locations. Asbell and the Huntleys argued that BP failed to ensure safety and security at the stations, which were known targets for crime. However, evidence showed that the Northside Drive BP was operated by Ronald Dean, an independent dealer, and that BP's role was limited to property ownership and leasing. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, dismissing the claims against BP.

Dean operates the Northside BP station with significant autonomy, adhering to good business practices while controlling operations within the framework of the dealer agreement. He is obligated to sell BP gasoline but has the freedom to choose other products, set prices, and establish operational policies, such as limiting family presence during work hours and installing surveillance cameras independently. The Dealer Lease and Supply Agreement, established in 1992, mandates that the only required purchase from BP is gasoline, allowing Dean to source other retail products elsewhere. Although the agreement specifies that the convenience store should be open 24/7, Dean believes that 18 hours of operation suffices.

The agreements clarify that the dealer operates independently, and BP does not have the right to control the dealer or employees' operational methods. They provide guidelines to ensure quality and uniformity without establishing an agency relationship. The trial court found no evidence that BP controlled daily operations at the facilities, affirming that BP's role was limited to ensuring the leased premises were maintained as per legal obligations. The court also rejected claims from Asbell and the Huntleys regarding BP's responsibility for repairs and maintenance, asserting that BP had contractually delegated these duties to the dealers while providing only specified maintenance items.

Dealer agreements stipulate that dealers must maintain the Facility and BP's equipment per an attached Maintenance Schedule at their own expense. BP is responsible for maintaining totalizers on fuel dispensing equipment after dealer notification and for major repairs at its discretion. Maintenance schedules outline the frequency of tasks required from both dealers and BP, with dealers responsible for daily and weekly inspections of various equipment and facilities. The Dealer Lease and Supply Agreements mandate that dealers ensure a safe workplace and comply with relevant laws, emphasizing the dealers' duty to maintain safe premises.

The only claim regarding failure to repair at the Headland Drive BP facility pertains to exterior lighting, which is insufficient as the Huntleys did not prove inadequate lighting contributed to Eddie Huntley’s shooting. Huntley testified he observed a suspicious individual outside the facility, and evidence showed the facility had ample lighting despite some bulbs being out. 

No evidence supports claims that the Northside Drive and Headland Drive BP stations were improperly constructed. The Huntleys’ claims for additional security measures, such as fencing and protective barriers, lack evidence that these changes would have prevented the shootings. An expert witness admitted uncertainty about whether fencing would have complied with local codes and acknowledged no data supporting the effectiveness of protective barriers in crime prevention. Furthermore, there is no established industry standard for bullet-resistant partitions in convenience stores, and the expert had never recommended such installations in his consulting work.

Wayne Meding from Chevron and John Manelos from Amoco testified that their companies install bullet-resistant partitions in company-operated locations but lack a policy for dealer-operated sites. The appellants' expert conceded that lighting was not an issue at the Northside Drive BP, which had a pass-through window and a policy to lock the front door after 10 p.m. The Huntleys failed to demonstrate how lighting insufficiency contributed to Eddie Huntley's injury. Even if BP had some control over the Northside facility, it would not be liable for Hill's murder, as the incident was not foreseeable. Dean indicated that the service station was in a low-crime area, with only two incidents in 17-18 years, and BP had no prior knowledge of similar criminal activities. BP did not monitor dealer-operated stations or require incident reporting. Asbell's security expert failed to provide statistical support for claims that the Northside location was in a high-crime area or that bullet-resistant glass reduces crime risk. Dean independently decided to install bullet-resistant glass after the murder, with no involvement from BP. The trial court correctly ruled that BP could not foresee the attack on Hill. Furthermore, Asbell and the Huntleys argued that BP had specific knowledge of robbery dangers and provided inadequate security. However, the evidence did not support BP's specific awareness of robbery threats at the relevant BP locations, despite claims that associations like MARS and SEPA communicated robbery risks to BP.

The appellants' claims are inaccurate regarding the formation and funding of MARS and SEPA. MARS was established by the FBI in 1991 due to a rise in bank robberies in Atlanta, seeking funding from petroleum companies due to their financial capacity, not due to high crime rates at convenience stores. SEPA was created to fund MARS and address security issues for petroleum companies in the Southeastern U.S. An FBI agent used a bank robbery chart in his discussions with SEPA to garner support for MARS.

Evidence suggests that BP could not have foreseen the robbery and murder at the Northside Drive station, and a Vulnerability Analysis Site Report from 1990 indicated a "moderately low" crime rate at the Headland Drive station. There is no evidence that BP informed dealer Arienzo of significant crime-related operational challenges; he was advised that profitability would be difficult. The Dealer Lease and Supply Agreements clearly assign workplace safety responsibilities to the dealers, requiring them to ensure a safe working environment for employees and to comply with safety regulations.

BP provided limited security assistance, such as pre-employment screening and a rewards program for information leading to arrests, but did not conduct security assessments or upgrades and did not employ security personnel. The injuries sustained by Hill and Eddie Huntley resulted from the independent criminal actions of third parties on premises controlled by the dealers. While BP's Security Department offers assistance upon request, the dealer agreements explicitly state that BP does not have a duty to maintain a safe workplace.

Dean installed security cameras at the Northside Drive facility without BP's involvement, and Arienzo chose to replace BP's security system at Headland Drive due to cost, later requesting additional security measures that were subject to BP's approval. Despite being informed that keeping a gun under the counter was against BP policy, Arienzo did so. Ultimately, BP did not maintain or control the safety of the Northside Drive and Headland Drive facilities, as the dealer agreements specified that the responsibility for safety lay with the dealers.

Both dealers accepted responsibility for the incident in question. Although the appellants' expert proposed additional security measures that could have been implemented, BP was not obligated to enforce these measures at the dealer locations. The claims by Asbell and the Huntleys that BP was a concurrent proximate cause of the robbery and murder were rejected, as prior determinations established that BP had no duty to ensure workplace safety and had not breached any obligation regarding the construction and maintenance of the facilities in question. The trial court correctly ruled that it was unnecessary to address the nuisance claim since BP had relinquished possession of the locations and lacked an agency relationship, which is essential for liability regarding private nuisance. The judgment was affirmed.