Southern Union Gas Co. v. Madeley

• Decision Date: 17 November 1932
• Docket Number: No. 9783.,9783.
• Citation: Southern Union Gas Co. v. Madeley, 55 S.W.2d 599 (Tex. App. 1932)
• Parties: SOUTHERN UNION GAS CO. v. MADELEY.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

55 S.W.2d 599

SOUTHERN UNION GAS CO. v.MADELEY.

No. 9783.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

November 17, 1932.

Appeal from District Court, Grimes County; S. W. Dean, Judge.

Suit by Sam Madeley against the Southern Union Gas Company.From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

Royston & Rayzor, of Galveston, and A. T. McKinney, Jr., of Huntsville, for appellant.

Robt.W. Dean and T. P. Buffington, both of Navasota, for appellee.

GRAVES, J.

The appellee sued for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by reason of the appellant's negligence, in that appellant dug a ditch at the end of appellee's garage and along the alley adjacent thereto, in the city of Navasota, Tex., leaving in the driveway leading to the garage a pipe that was too heavy to be moved by the appellee, so that he could not drive in or out of the garage unless the pipe were moved or made stationary; that appellee, in assisting his son in getting his car out into the alley, was struck on the leg by the piece of heavy pipe, the resulting injury being thus proximately caused by appellant's negligence, and the appellee being guilty of no contributory negligence.

Appellant answered by general demurrer, special exceptions, and general denial, along with special defenses.

The court, after overruling the special exceptions, rendered judgment in favor of the appellee on the verdict of a jury in response to special issues, wherein it was found: First, that appellant strung the pipe along the alley in such a manner as to obstruct the entrance to appellee's garage; second, that this was negligence; third, that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury; fourth, that the appellee was guilty of no contributory negligence; fifth, that the injuries were not due solely to the negligence of the appellee's son; sixth, that the appellee was damaged in a sum of $5,000; seventh, that a reasonably prudent person would not have foreseen that the pipe would roll out from under and away from the back wheels, and that the car was put in forward motion and passed over the pipe.

The uncontroverted testimony discloses these facts: That the large loose pipe was left in the alley across the doors to appellee's double garage, the doors, however, being unobstructed by it and opening in the usual way; that appellee's son backed the rear wheels of his automobile over this pipe, but the front wheels would not pull over it, instead causing the pipe to move with the car backward and forward as attempt was made to get the automobile on over it in either a forward or backward direction; that the appellee, after first observing this situation and in advance seeing his son in this predicament, then came out, looked things over, and told his son to refrain from further attempts to extricate the car until he could procure a crowbar; that the appellee returned with the crowbar and placed it in the ground on the side of the pipe closest to the front of the automobile, he himself standing behind the pipe, which he had scotched with the crowbar on the opposite side, and motioning to his son to pull the car on over the pipe; that the son then applied its power and pulled the automobile on over, the back wheels—after passing over it—hurling the pipe against appellee's leg while he stood a short distance behind the pipe...