Dullnig v. G. A. Duerler Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1905
• Citation: 87 S.W. 332
• Parties: DULLNIG v. G. A. DUERLER MFG. CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

87 S.W. 332

DULLNIG v. G. A. DUERLER MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 18, 1905.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by Henrietta Dullnig, as guardian of Robert Dullnig, against the G. A. Duerler Manufacturing Company. There was a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversing a judgment for plaintiff (83 S. W. 889), and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

I. B. Henyan, for plaintiff in error. Houston Bros. and R. J. Boyle, for defendant in error.

BROWN, J.

We extract from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals the following statement of the pleading and facts:

"The gist of the charge of negligence alleged by plaintiff may be stated thus: That on April 12, 1902, plaintiff's ward, Robert Dullnig, while employed as the servant of appellant in handling bottles filled with highly carbonated Carrizo Springs water, one of the bottles exploded, in consequence of which he lost an eye; that such injury was proximately caused by the negligence of appellant in that Robert was directed by the company to handle bottles filled with Carrizo Springs mineral water charged to a dangerously high pressure with carbonic liquid gas, the pressure being about 100 pounds to the square inch; that the gas with which the bottles were charged was highly explosive, and the handling of bottles of water charged therewith at such pressure was on that account very dangerous to one employed in manipulating them; that it negligently used old, secondhand, and unfit bottles, not strong enough to stand such high pressure; that the place where Robert was put to work was insufficiently lighted; that the gauges, regulators, and bottling apparatus were unfit and dangerous, and the employés operating the same were careless and negligent; that Robert, on account of his youth (he being only 17 years old), was inexperienced, and ignorant of the danger incident to handling bottles so charged; and that appellant was negligent in taking him from his work as a bottle washer, for which he was employed, without instructing him how to handle bottles charged at such pressure, or informing him of the danger incident to such employment, and in failing to provide him with a mask or screen for his face, designed for the safety of those engaged in such work, which would have prevented his injury resulting from such explosion. While the evidence shows that Robert Dullnig was, when injured, about 17 years old, it fails to show that he was employed to wash...