Crockett v. Troyk
| Decision Date | 16 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 8013.,8013. |
| Citation | 78 S.W.2d 1012 |
| Parties | CROCKETT v. TROYK et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Coleman Gay, of Austin, and Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
Hart, Patterson & Hart, of Austin, for defendants in error.
The parties will be designated appellant and appellee.
Appellee, Mrs. Irene Troyk, sued appellant, M. H. Crockett, and recovered judgment for $4,000 as damages resulting from injuries received by appellee in a gas explosion, which occurred in the tourist cabin of appellant while the relation of innkeeper and guest existed between them.
Appellee alleged, and the jury found, that her injuries resulted from a gas explosion, caused by some negligent act of appellant in permitting gas to escape in the cabin, it being alleged that such gas had escaped in, and accumulated at the ceiling of, the cabin prior to and during the time appellee occupied it, and had gradually become packed downward to a level with the pilot light on the water heater, which ignited the gas and caused the explosion; that on the morning after spending the night in the cabin with her small baby appellee raised the windows near the bed and went to the lavatory; that the air from the open window caused the accumulated gas to circulate and come in contact with the pilot light on the water heater, which ignited the gas and caused the explosion. As specific acts of negligence, appellee alleged, and the jury found, as follows:
(a) That appellant used a leaky or defective gas connection between the gas heating stove and the gas cock at the wall, which permitted the gas to escape in, and accumulate at the ceiling of, the cabin; that the use of the defective gas connection was negligence; and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the explosion.
(b) That the gas connection to the heating stove was a rubber hose, used in violation of a city ordinance; that the use of such rubber hose was negligence; and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the explosion.
(c) That gas had been permitted to escape in the cabin from gas pipes, appliances, or gas connection prior to the time appellee occupied it; that the presence of such gas in the cabin when appellee occupied it was due to the negligence of appellant in failing to inspect and maintain the cabin in a reasonably safe condition for guests; and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the explosion.
The sole question presented is the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury findings that the use of the defective rubber hose connection caused, or contributed to cause, the explosion. Appellant contends that the undisputed evidence showed it to be impossible for enough gas to have escaped from the defective rubber hose to cause the explosion during the two hours appellee testified she used the heating stove before retiring for the night, at which time she closed the gas cock at the wall and disconnected the rubber hose. From such interpretation of the facts appellant concludes that appellee failed to show "any causal connection between the use of the rubber hose and the explosion." We do not sustain the contention.
Appellee's right of recovery was not limited to a gas explosion caused by gas which escaped in the cabin during the time she occupied it. She alleged that such gas escaped in and accumulated in the cabin prior to and during the time she occupied it. The proof showed that for several days prior to, and for two hours during, the occupancy by appellee, the defective rubber hose was used in the cabin. The jury found that gas which escaped from gas connections and accumulated in the cabin prior to its occupancy was a proximate cause of the explosion, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rocoff v. Lancella, 20599
...for the purpose of furnishing lodging accommodations to the public sustains to his occupants the relation of innkeeper. Crockett v. Troyk, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 1012. 29 Am.Jur., Innkeepers, Sec. 28, p. 'Neither the length of the stay nor the fact that payment for the accommodation is mad......
-
Chase v. Beard
...P.2d 890; Alsup v. Saratoga Hotel, Inc., 71 Idaho 229, 229 P.2d 985; Doherty v. Arcade Hotel, 170 Or. 374, 134 P.2d 118; Crockett v. Troyk, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 1012; Winer v. Walo, Inc., Fla.App., 105 So.2d 376; Walker v. Weymouth, 154 Me. 138, 145 A.2d 90; 43 C.J.S. Innkeepers § 22(b)(......
-
Holt v. Lowden
...Tex.Civ.App., 54 S.W.2d 349, writ refused; International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. McCullough, Tex.Civ.App., 118 S.W. 558; Crockett v. Troyk, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 1012, writ dismissed. If the injuries suffered by the animals resulted solely from inherent vices and natural propensities, as found......
-
Langford v. Vandaveer
...have been applied in cases of injuries to occupants of motor courts. See Ritchie v. Thomas, 190 Or. 95, 224 P.2d 543; Crockett v. Troyk, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 1012; Holcomb v. Meeds, 173 Kan. 321, 246 P.2d 239; Graham v. North Carolina Butane Gas Co., 231 N.C. 680, 58 S.E.2d 757, 17 A.L.R......