Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 22 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 3722,3722 |
| Citation | 339 S.W.2d 954 |
| Parties | HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY, Appellant, v. Myrtle WILSON et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Frank L. Heard, Jr., Houston, for appellant.
Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, Newton Gresham, Roland A. Baker, Leonard Z. Finger, McGregor, Sewell & Junell, Houston, for appellees.
Appellant engaged Knobloch & Company to perform work on a flare stack at its refinery. Wilson, an employee of the contractor, was killed while engaged in welding work atop the stack. His beneficiaries sued Humble, alleging the latter's negligence caused the death. Humble, alleging negligence, impleaded the contractor, from whom it claimed indemnity under provisions of the written contract for the work.
The jury found deceased was not negligent, and that negligence of both Humble and the contractor proximately caused the death. Judgment was rendered for appellees against appellant. Recovery by appellant against Knobloch, the contractor, was denied.
The sole question presented as between appellant and the contractor is whether the following agreement by Knobloch entitles Humble to indemnity against him, since the jury has found concurrent negligence of indemnitor and indemnitee:
'Contractor further agrees to protect, indemnify and save Humble harmless from and against all claims, demands and causes of action of every kind and character arising in favor of contractor's employees * * * or third parties on account of * * * death * * * in any way resulting from the wilful or negligent acts or omissions of Contractor's agents, employees, representatives or subcontractors.'
Although not involving analogous provisions; or, in our opinion, solving the present problem, the cases of Mitchell's, Inc. v. Frideman, 157 Tex. 424, 303 S.W.2d 775, 779, and James Stewart & Co. v. Mobley, Tex.Civ.App., 282 S.W.2d 290, writ ref., give clear answers to several incidental questions as to which the parties agree: (1) Strictissimi juris is not to be used in determining intention; it is determined by general construction rules in which neither party is favored simply because the contract is one of indemnity. (2) If the contract is exculpatory of liability for loss resulting from concurrent negligence, it is not against public policy. [157 Tex. 424, 303 S.W.2d 779.] (3) 'It is not necessary, for the parties to say in so many words that they intend to protect the indemnitee against liability for negligence,' although the obligation must fall within the express terms of the indemnity agreement. We do not regard the language in the Friedman case concerning concurrent negligence of another tenant as implying an answer to the problem.
Where the indemnity is from loss resulting from the indemnitor's 'negligent acts or omissions,' the dominant weight of authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. Chambers & Kennedy
...consequences of the negligent conduct of City and the non-negligent conduct of Texas Tower. Cf. Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Wilson, 339 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco, 1960, writ ref'd, n.r.e.); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Childs-Bellows, 352 S.W.2d 806 (Tex.Civ.App. — Ft. Worth, 1962, wri......
-
Sira & Payne, Inc. v. Wallace & Riddle
...City of Beaumont v. Graham was passive, but we held there was no right to indemnity. See also Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Wilson, 339 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and St. Louis & S.W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Arnold, 32 Tex.Civ.App. 272, 74 S.W. 819 (1903), writ ......
-
Ohio Oil Co. v. Smith, A-9066
...See also: Crews Well Service v. Texas Company, Tex.Civ.App. (1962), 358 S.W.2d 171, wr. ref. n. r. e.; Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Wilson, Tex.Civ.App. (1960), 339 S.W.2d 954, wr. ref., n. r. e. Indemnity agreements between owners and contractor are not more strictly construed than suc......
-
Coastal States Crude Gathering Co. v. Williams, 640
...its negligence concurs with that of Coastal States, a third party, as a proximate cause of the accident. Compare Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Wilson, 339 S.W.2d 954 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1960, wr. ref'd n.r.e.) . The question to be resolved is whether it was the intention of the parties, as e......