Texas Co. v. Grant
| Decision Date | 10 March 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 13489.,13489. |
| Citation | 179 S.W.2d 1007 |
| Parties | TEXAS CO. et al. v. GRANT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Dallas County; Claude M. McCallum, Judge.
Action by George W. Grant against the Texas Company and others for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when he fell while walking on a sloping sidewalk so constructed for the purpose of ingress and egress in carrying on the business of a filling station. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Wm. E. Loose, of Houston; Kennemer & Armstrong, James H. Walker, and M B. Solomon, all of Dallas, and Black, Graves & Stayton, of Austin, for appellants.
John W. West and W. H. Hall, both of Dallas, for appellee.
This appeal is from a judgment in appellee's favor, against appellants, for damages sustained while walking along an inclined or sloping sidewalk which had been constructed by abutting property owners. The sidewalk was so constructed for the purpose of ingress and egress in carrying on the business of a Texaco filling station located on abutting property. Neither the City of Dallas nor the property owner was made party defendant, the suit being between appellee and tenants of the owner. The Texas Company owned the service equipment at the station, and held lease contract for the premises. Rex C. Redman and J. R. Redman held possession of and operated the service station under sublease contract from the Texas Company, paid rents to the Texas Company, and the Company, in turn, paid rents to the owner. The Redmans were under contract to sell, and were selling the Texas Company's products through the station, and the Texas Company, under contract to deliver the products, was using the sidewalk in its deliveries. Customers entering and departing from the service station necessarily had to drive their cars over the inclined sidewalk.
Appellee, at the time he sustained injuries, slipped on an oily or greasy spot which, in some unexplained manner, was on the sidewalk; the accident occurring about 9 o'clock at night. The service station was closed at the time, and there is no evidence that either party to this suit knew, or had occasion to know prior to the accident, that the oily or greasy spot existed. There is evidence, however, that operatives of the service station, on many occasions prior to the accident, had used the sidewalk in greasing and otherwise servicing automobiles, and that the Texas Company had used it in delivering gasoline to the station. The jury found: (1) That on the occasion of appellee's injury, there was oil, grease or a slippery substance on the sloping sidewalk in question; (2) that appellee stepped upon the substance and fell to the sidewalk, sustaining personal injuries; (3) that appellant Redman Bros. and the Texas Company each made special use of the sloping sidewalk in the operation of the filling station; (4) that the presence of oil, grease or slippery substance on the sidewalk caused a hazardous, unsafe condition; (5) that appellee's injuries were not the result of an unavoidable accident; (6) that appellee was not guilty of negligence in walking upon the slippery sidewalk, or in stepping upon the oily or greasy substance, or in failing to keep a proper lookout; and (7) that appellee suffered damages in the sum of $638 on account of such injuries. On the state of the record and findings of the jury, the court entered the judgment.
Appellee predicated his right of recovery upon two ordinances of the City of Dallas: (1) Art. 144-6, making abutting property owners or persons enjoying the use of any property abutting on a sidewalk that has become defective, primarily liable for damages for any loss or damage sustained as the result of such defective condition; and the other, Art. 144-7, making it the duty of any property owner, person, firm or corporation making special use of any sidewalk for purpose of ingress and egress, or for any special personal use, to keep such sidewalk in good and safe condition, free from any defects or hazards of whatever kind and character. These ordinances were made penal in nature (Art. 144-9): Failing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Gulf Refining Co.
...Moore v. Monarch Gasoline & Oil Co., 225 Mo.App. 115, 35 S.W.2d 669; Graalum v. Radisson Ramp, Minn., 71 N.W.2d 904; Texas Co. v. Grant, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 1007; Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Long, Tex.Civ.App., 51 S.W.2d 426, affirmed 126 Tex. 195, 86 S.W.2d 450, 451; Williams v. Kozlows......
-
Texas Co. v. Grant
...for personal injuries. On a jury verdict the trial court rendered judgment for Grant, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 179 S.W.2d 1007. At the time in question the Redmans were operating a filling station as sublessees of the Texas Company, which had the property under leas......
-
Ives v. Carr
...v. Buck & Powers Oil Co., 175 Wash. 263, 27 P.2d 118; Hanlon v. City of Waterbury, 108 Conn. 197, 142 A. 681, and Texas Co. v. Grant, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 1007. Counsel the plaintiffs make an effort to show that, even if there was no oil or grease in the water, it was negligence to caus......