McCane-Sondock Protection Systems, Inc. v. Emmittee
Citation | 540 S.W.2d 764 |
Decision Date | 19 August 1976 |
Docket Number | CANE-SONDOCK,No. 4897,4897 |
Parties | McPROTECTION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. James Roy EMMITTEE d/b/a Bedford Package Store, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
William C. Book, Tekell, Book & Matthews, Houston, for appellant.
Rokki Ford Roberts, Dunn & Roberts, Bellaire, for appellee.
James Roy Emmittee d/b/a Bedford Package Store sued McCane-Sondock Protection Systems, Inc. for negligently installing a burglar alarm system at his business. After a jury trial, judgment was entered awarding Emmittee $6,839 damages. McCane-Sondock appeals. We affirm.
Appellant argues in five points of error there was no evidence to support the finding that it proximately caused the loss by failing to connect the wires leading from the hold-up button to the burglar alarm control panel and that such finding was so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong and unjust.
Further, it contends there was no evidence or, in the alternative, insufficient evidence to support the finding that it proximately caused the damages in failing to test the system prior to leaving the premises of the store, and that such finding was so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong and unjust.
Finally, appellant urges the trial court erred in entering judgment for $10,500 remitted to $6,839 because as a matter of law, the maximum amount Emmittee could recover was $25 based on the liquidated damage clause in the contract.
Appellant argues its action could not be a proximate cause of the loss suffered by Emmittee because it was the action of some third party which caused the loss.
The court in Teer v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 426 S.W.2d 610 (Tex.Civ.App., Houston (14th Dist.) 1968, writ ref. n.r.e.) said:
It is established appellant failed to connect the wires leading from the hold-up buttons to the burglar alarm control panel and failed to test the system after installation of the alarm buttons.
In the instant case, Mrs. Emmittee and the store manager pressed alarm buttons to activate the system when a robber came into the store declaring 'it was a hold-up.' There was testimony that if the alarm had functioned the police would have been notified within 30 to 45 seconds. The police station was located only a couple of miles from the liquor store. The robber remained in the store five to ten minutes after the alarm buttons were pressed. We hold these facts constitute some evidence that Emmittee's loss was the proximate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stonebraker v. Zinn
...void and limit recovery to actual damages. Wilson v. Dealy, 222 Tenn. 196, 434 S.W.2d 835 (1968); McCane--Sondock Protection Systems, Inc. v. Emmittee, 540 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.Civ.App.1976); Brower Co. v. Garrison, 2 Wash.App. 424, 468 P.2d 469 (1970). If the provision is held to be for liquida......
-
Central Alarm of Tucson v. Ganem
...jurisdictions. See Better Food Markets v. American Dist. Tel. Co., 40 Cal.2d 179, 253 P.2d 10 (1953); McCane-Sondock Protect. Systems v. Emmittee, 540 S.W.2d 764 (Tex.Civ.App.1976); McCane Sondock Det. Agcy. v. Penland Dist., Inc., 523 S.W.2d 62 Appellant's second contention is that appelle......
-
Vallance & Co. v. DeAnda
...neither of these cases did the courts decide whether a provision for liquidated damages was enforceable. See McCane-Sondock Protection Systems, Inc. v. Emmittee, 540 S.W.2d 764, 766 (Tex.Civ.App. Eastland 1976, no writ); McCane Sondock Detective Agency v. Penland Distributors, Inc., 523 S.W......
-
Pope v. Rollins Protective Services Co., 82-2137
...act were foreseeable. Abdallah, 557 F.2d at 63; Austin v. Schmedes, Tex.1955, 279 S.W.2d 326, 331; McCane-Sondock Protection Systems, Inc. v. Emmitte, Tex.Civ.App.1976, 540 S.W.2d 764, 765. We need not consider the foreseeability of the burglars in this case, however, because the proper cau......