Radley v. Knepfly

• Decision Date: 01 March 1911
• Citation: 135 S.W. 111
• Parties: RADLEY et al. v. KNEPFLY.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

135 S.W. 111

RADLEY et al. v. KNEPFLY.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 1, 1911.

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

Action by Hattie Radley and others against Magdalene Knepfly. From a judgment for defendant (124 S. W. 447), plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

M. L. Morris and Crow & Donalson, for plaintiffs in error. Carden, Starling & Carden and McCart, Bowlin & McCart, for defendant in error.

RAMSEY, J.

This suit was brought in the district court of Dallas county by plaintiffs in error against Mrs. Magdalene Knepfly to recover damages resulting from the death of R. F. Radley, caused by a fire in the Knepfly building, situated at the corner of Main and Poydras streets, in the city of Dallas, due, as was averred, to the negligence of Mrs. Knepfly in failing to provide said building, or, at least the third story thereof, which was used as a lodging house, with suitable and proper fire escapes, as required by the ordinances of the city of Dallas.

At the trial had in said court, the judge instructed a verdict peremptorily for the defendant in error. This judgment was, on appeal, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth supreme judicial district (124 S. W. 447). That court held that the cause of action asserted by appellants was defeated on four different propositions: (1) That under the charter of the city of Dallas it was without authority to enact the ordinance, the failure to observe which was claimed to have caused the damages sued for. (2) That, if the power to enact this ordinance be conceded, it was, by its terms, oppressive, unreasonable, and therefore void. (3) That, under the facts, the deceased assumed the risks and hazard which caused his death. And, (4) as a conclusion of fact from the testimony introduced, that the failure on the part of the defendant in error to comply with said ordinance relied on was not the proximate cause of the death of R. F. Radley. It follows, logically, that, if the Court of Civil Appeals is correct on either of these propositions, its judgment should be affirmed.

In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived, we have deemed it unnecessary to consider the first three propositions. all involving questions of law decided by the Court of Civil Appeals, though our failure so to do is not to be considered as an affirmance of the correctness of any of them. We have concluded, however, that, in view of the facts appearing in the record, that court was correct in holding that, under the uncontradicted evidence in the case, the plaintiffs in error were not entitled to recover.

The uncontradicted evidence showed that what was known as the Knepfly building in the city of Dallas was a three-story structure, and that the third story was occupied as a lodging house. This building fronted on Main street, with a frontage of approximately 25 feet, and ran back on Poydras street a distance of something like 75 feet. The following plat will disclose the general plan of the third story of the building, with its subdivision into rooms and hallways:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The facts immediately preceding the unfortunate death of Radley are disclosed in the testimony of John R. Minor. This witness was introduced by plaintiffs in error, and was shown to be the roommate of Radley. It was also shown in the evidence that he had himself brought a suit against the defendant in error for damages for injuries sustained on the occasion of the fire in question. The following statement, taken from the direct examination, covers, in a general way, the actions of himself and Radley on the immediate occasion of the fire: "We slept with our heads towards the west. When I got up, I went from the side of the bed around the end, and sat down on the floor, and the floor was hot. I got up and sat down on the end of the bed, and it brought me in view of the door, and I saw the smoke coming in—three little curls under the hall door—and then I halloed to Mr. Radley to get up; the building was on fire. Then I ran to the Poydras end of the building, and broke out the window with a little hammer laying on the window seat—the north window. I broke out the window with the hammer and punched the screen out with my hand. I could see the smoke coming from the second story. The wind blew the smoke in my face. Just as I turned around, Mr. Radley opened the door to the hall, the west door, and the flames shot in there, and I threw my hands up to my face to protect myself, and Mr. Radley came staggering back, and I ran and caught him, and carried him to the window. I carried him to the north window. As soon as I saw him going through the side, I jumped through the south window. He jumped first, and I jumped right after. I never heard him say anything at all, when he opened the door into the hall. He never said anything after he got up. I broke out the window and looked out, and as I turned around, he opened the door. He seemed to have picked his clothes up and threw them around him; threw his coat around his shoulders. I had on a suit of underwear. I never had on any...