Harris County v. Eaton
| Decision Date | 18 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 1735,1735 |
| Citation | 561 S.W.2d 245 |
| Parties | COUNTY OF HARRIS, Texas, Appellant, v. James EATON et al., Appellees. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Joe Resweber, County Atty., J. Robert Hobgood, Asst. County Atty., Houston, for appellant.
Roland B. Darby, Larry W. Harrison, Houston, for appellees.
Harris County appeals from an adverse judgment which awarded the appellees James Eaton, Doris Jean Burk, John C. Hall, and Nancy W. Hall $10,700.00 damages for personal injuries suffered when their car overturned after striking a large chughole in a road maintained by appellant.
On February 29, 1976 the appellees were traveling on the 12,000 block of Riceville School Road in a 1976 Mercury Capri driven by appellee Doris Jean Burk. They were proceeding in the southbound lane at about 35 miles per hour when the vehicle hit a large hole in the road. The driver lost control and the car overturned, causing personal injuries to the four appellees.
Approximately one week after the accident the appellees gave notice to Harris County of their claim for damages under the Texas Tort Claims Act, art. 6252-19 (1970). The appellees then filed suit alleging negligence on the part of Harris County in failing to properly maintain the road and in failing to place warning devices to apprise travelers of the defect in the road. Harris County answered asserting inter alia, a general denial, a denial that the appellees had any cause of action pursuant to the Texas Tort Claims Act, and a claim that the failure of the driver to use the proper degree of care under the circumstances was a proximate cause, or sole proximate cause of the accident. The case was tried to the court. On April 7, 1977 the trial court entered its judgment for the plaintiffs and in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law found that the County knew or should have known of the holes in sufficient time to repair them or warn travelers of their existence, and that the accident was proximately caused by the combined negligence of Harris County and the driver, Doris Jean Burk. The court apportioned seventy percent negligence to Harris County and thirty percent negligence to Ms. Burk.
Harris County appeals and assigns seven points of error.
The County, in points one, two, and five, contends that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court concerning knowledge on the part of the county, negligence and causation. All of these points are overruled. The photographs of the hole, introduced by the plaintiffs, evidence its size and the risk created by its presence. It is also apparent that a hole of this size must have been present for at least several days. W. A. Addison, a deputy sheriff for Harris County, testified that the hole was approximately ten inches in depth and made the road unsafe for travel at the maximum legal speed of 35 miles per hour. The photographs and other testimony show that the hole spanned almost the entire width of the road. It was common knowledge to anyone familiar with the road that chugholes were the "rule of the day." There is further evidence that employees of the precinct traveled the roads in their jurisdiction daily and it was their duty to report holes or other defects. We are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to support the court's finding of negligence and proximate cause.
In point of error four Harris County asserts that the hazard is open and obvious, and, as a result, the County owed no duty to warn of the defect. The facts in this case are analogous to those in Adam Dante Corporation v. Sharpe, 483 S.W.2d 452 (Tex.Sup.1972). There the plaintiff knew about the presence of water but not about the slippery film on the floor. The court said:
When one speaks of a condition as being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matts v. City of Phoenix
...required to indulge in sheer speculation to determine the duration of the condition. Appellants also contend that County of Harris v. Eaton, 561 S.W.2d 245 (Tex.Civ.App.1978), aff'd 573 S.W.2d 177 (1978), their position. We disagree. The photograph in Eaton depicted a hole which spanned alm......
-
New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez
...without exposing himself to the danger of looking into the hole. In support of this argument, he cites Harris Cty. v. Eaton , 561 S.W.2d 245, 246 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1978), aff'd , 573 S.W.2d 177 (Tex. 1978), in which a pothole visible from a distance was held not to be an op......
-
Harris County v. Eaton
...seventy percent of the negligence to the defendant Harris County and thirty percent to plaintiff. The court of civil appeals affirmed. 561 S.W.2d 245. We affirm the judgments of the courts The suit arose from an automobile accident. Doris Jean Burk Eaton shortly after noon on February 29, 1......
-
City of Socorro v. Hernandez, 08–14–00009–CV
...no pet.) (floodwaters over state highway constituted special defect because it was an obstruction); County of Harris v. Eaton, 561 S.W.2d 245, 247 (Tex.Civ.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1978) (ten-inch deep pothole spanning width of road was an obstruction that constituted special defect), aff'......