Mobil Chemical Co. v. Bell

• Decision Date: 29 November 1973
• Docket Number: No. 7530,7530
• Citation: 502 S.W.2d 564
• Parties: MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Edward L. BELL et al., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 564

502 S.W.2d 564

MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY et al., Appellants, v.Edward L. BELL et al., Appellees.

No. 7530.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Beaumont.

Nov. 29, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1973.

Orgain, Bell & Tucker, Beaumont, for appellants.

Waldman & Smallwood, Beaumont, for appellees.

DIES, Chief Justice.

In April of 1966, C. F. Braun and Company by contract was constructing a terephthalic acid unit for Mobil Chemical Company.The leach section of Unit A had been completed and turned over to Mobil about two weeks prior to April 5, 1966.Braun was still in the process of constructing Unit B, and plaintiffsEdward L. Bell and J. A. Hurley were employees of Braun engaged in this work.A hydrostatic test had been performed on Unit A, and on April 5, 1966, Mobil was running acetic acid for the purpose 'to get it circulated, and check out the equipment in preparation of starting the unit up.'

At about 4:30 p.m. on that date, acetic acid escaped from Unit A into the atmosphere, got on plaintiffs, who were working in a tower about 70 feet away, causing their injuries.They brought suit against Mobil alleging specific acts of negligence and alternatively res ipsa loquitur.A jury found that the leach section of Unit A was under the exclusive control and direction of defendant, that acetic acid was released into the air by defendant, that defendant failed to use ordinary care in the maintenance of leach Section A, and that this failure was a proximate cause of the incident.

The jury failed to find: that the defendant failed to have a pressure gauge on the leach section, or failed to close the valve of the leach section.

Judgment was given plaintiffs from which Mobil perfects this appeal.Since this appeal concerns the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, we must first summarize the evidence concerning causation.This can be best accomplished--and perhaps only accomplished--by referring to a diagram of the section involved, which diagram we have attached to this opinion.

The acetic acid ran through the feed line so marked at the bottom of the diagram.As long as the pressure did not exceed about 850 pounds per square inch, it remained in this feed line.Knowing, however, that surges do occur in the pressure of the compound being run through the feed line, they deliberately designed the unit so that when surges above this amount occur, the compound in the line--in this case acetic acid is bled off into a relief valve, which maintains a closed system--that is to say, the acid is prevented from emission into the atmosphere.In the case of acetic acid this is important because of danger of fire as well as its harmful effects on human beings.

Just above the feed line, please notice a pipe marked 1 above which are two discs, so marked.These 'rupture discs' are designed to rupture at about 850 psi to take the contents of the feed line in the direction of the arrows to the relief valve.

On the date above noted at about 4:30 or 5 p.m., Jerry Griffith, process superintendent of the terephthalic acid plant was in the control room of the unit when the controlman indicated to Griffith that there was an acid leak in the leach section.'I could see that a quarter inch valve was blowing acetic acid straight up in the air.'He put on a mask, went out and closed the valve stopping the acid escape.He believes the valve was only open three to five minutes.

Marvin Fannin, a chemical engineer with Mobil, looked at the valve afterwards and found the pressure indicator gone, the break being marked on the attached diagram.

Both rupture discs were ruptured and later replaced.The valve, marked A on the diagram is left open, so that when the pressure discs are ruptured, this will be indicated by a reading on the pressure indicator connected to the valve (marked A).The pressure indicator is marked PI.Had this indicator been connected and held when the discs ruptured, no danger would have been presented.It would only have been a question of shutting down the unit to replace the discs.This had occurred the day before the accident.

The possible causes why the pipe broke at valve A were entirely given by Griffith and Fannin as (a) vibration, (b) metal fatigue as a result of torque, (c) defective part, (d) removal of the pressure indicator by someone, (e)'Someone didn't tighten that thing up like they should have.'

Witness Fannin expressed the opinion, '(W)hat had happened, when the guy put it in, he over-tightened it,' causing nipple fatigue (torque).'The quy,' was presumably one of Braun's pipefitters, since they built the system.

Mobil's first point is the error of the trial court in submitting the case to the jury on the theory of liability predicated on 'res ipsa' findings.

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, negligence may be inferred from the mere fact that an accident happened, provided that the character of the accident and the circumstance in proof attending it may be such as to lead reasonably to the belief that, without negligence, it would not have occurred.Tex. & St. Louis R'y Co. v. Suggs, 62 Tex. 323(1884); Washington v. Missouri, K. & T . Ry. Co. of Texas, 90 Tex. 314, 38 S.W. 764(1897);Bond v. Otis Elevator Company, 388 S.W.2d 681(Tex.1965);Owen v. Brown, 447 S.W.2d 883(Tex.1969);J. Weingarten, Inc. v. Gauthier, 305 S.W.2d 181(Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1957, no writ);Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. Elliott, 125 Tex. 248, 81 S.W.2d 659(1935).See cases cited in 40 Tex.Jur.2d, Negligence, § 147 at 670(1962).Also, the thing that causes the the management and control of the defendant, the management and control of the defendant.Owen, supra447 S.W.2d at 886;Bond, supra, 388 S.W.2d at 686.

On the authority of Bond, supra, andHonea v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 143 Tex. 272, 183 S.W.2d 968(1944), 160 A.L.R. 1445, we believe the facts of the case do raise the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and the court was correct in submitting it.Mobil's first point is overruled.

By its second point, Mobil complains of the 'error of the trial court in entering judgment against the defendant on the theory of liability predicated on 'res ipsa' findings.'Witchita, supra, has been cited probably as much as any Texas case on the res ipsa doctrine.There the Court said

'It is now well settled, however, in this state that in a proper case for the application of the rule the fact of the occurrence warrants an inference of negligence, but does not compel it; that the presumption created by the happening, whether termed a...