Acme Laundry Co. v. Ford, 5125
| Decision Date | 26 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 5125,5125 |
| Parties | ACME LAUNDRY COMPANY, Appellant, v. William E. FORD, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Hardie, Grambling Sims & Feuille, El Paso, for appellant.
Burges, Scott, Rasberry & Hulse, El Paso, for appellee.
This is a personal injury suit brought by appellee against appellant for damages for personal injuries sustained by him when he walked against and broke a plate glass window when leaving appellant's laundry. The case was tried to a jury, and on a verdict favorable to plaintiff the court rendered judgment for $1,353.50 against appellant.
Appellant's points are that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for an instructed verdict and its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and in rendering any judgment against appellant in favor of appellee.
Appellant's first contention is that as a matter of law, under the undisputed facts appellant was not guilty of any actionable negligence in maintaining the glass wall as it was designed and located. In answer to question No. 1 the jury found that the defendant maintained a solid glass wall in panels so designed and located as to appear to be an open doorway, and in answer to subsequent questions they found that the maintenance of such glass wall was negligence and a proximate cause of the accident. They also found the defendant negligent in failing to maintain a suitable barrier or obstruction in front of said wall for the protection of persons on the premises, including plaintiff, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.
Appellee's main contention is that the glass panel in question was not open and obvious, as it was formed just the size of a doorway and the glass was clear and not visible at the time of the accident, thus giving the panel the appearance of an open doorway, and that hence the defendant was negligent in not keeping barriers or warning signs to warn customers of the presence of this deceiving glass panel.
There was evidence that the building was constructed in accordance with plans drawn by a competent architect, by a competent builder. There is no evidence of any negligence upon the part of appellant in the selection of the architect or builder, nor is the construction of a building of this type so inherently dangerous as to warrant the conclusion that it is a public nuisance. Apart from any question of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff we cannot see how the defendant violated any duty owing by it to plaintiff. The testimony is somewhat conflicting as to whether other persons had bumped into the glass window before the plaintiff met with this accident, and whether the defendant knew of this fact. It we assume, as we must, in favor of the judgment, that other persons had bumped into the glass panel prior to the accident, we think such fact could have no material bearing on the question of defendant's negligence. There is no evidence as to under what circumstances such persons bumped into the window, if they did, therefore such evidence has no material bearing on the question of defendant's negligence.
Of the decisions in Texas dealing with a fact situation as we have here, the case of A. C. Burton Co. v. Stasny, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 310 (error refused) is most nearly in point. In that case it is alleged that defendant was negligent to maintain a show window that had all the appearance of an open door so as to lead persons approaching it to think it was an open door, that the window was completely transparent and highly polished, and not visible to a person approaching it from the inside. The jury found defendant negligent in not maintaining a guard rail, and in failing to place markings on the window, and found that the plaintiff was walking with his head down and was not guilty of negligence. The plaintiff in that case was a business invitee who saw the window when he entered the premises. It was held that there was no violation of any duty shown as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Mercer Steel Co., Inc.
...Lubik Oldsmobile, Inc. 70 N.J.Super. 221, 175 A.2d 477 (1961); Snyder v. Ginn, 202 Va. 8, 116 S.E.2d 31 (1960); Acme Laundry Company v. Ford, 284 S.W.2d 745 (Tex.Civ.App.1955); A. C. Burton Co. v. Stasny, 223 S.W.2d 310 (Tex.Civ.App.1949); Pinkey's Liquor Stores of Odessa, Inc. v. Carlee, 4......
-
Scott v. Liebman
...Appeals, wherein this Court refused the applications for writs of error with the notation, 'No Reversible Error': Acme Laundry Co. v. Ford, Tex.Civ.App. 284 S.W.2d 745 (1955); Crawford v. Given Bros., Tex.Civ.App., 318 S.W.2d 123 (1958); and Raeburn v. City of Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 346 S.W......
-
Fort Worth & D. Ry. Co. v. Britton
...of the building to a competent architect and builder. They cite White v. Green, Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W. 329, Acme Laundry Company v. Ford, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W.2d 745, and other authorities in support of their contention. We do not think such authorities are controlling here. The building wa......
-
Houston Sports Ass'n v. Russell
... ... & W. Corporation v. Ball, 414 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.Sup.); Acme Laundry Company v. Ford, 284 S .W.2d 745 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref., ... ...
-
CHAPTER 10.I. Motion Authorities
...surrounding other incidents sufficiently similar to circumstances surrounding incident in question). Acme Laundry Co. v. Ford, 284 S.W.2d 745, 746 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1955, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (evidence of other incidents irrelevant where there was no evidence of the circumstances of the......