White v. Green
| Decision Date | 25 June 1904 |
| Citation | 82 S.W. 329 |
| Parties | WHITE v. GREEN.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Turney & Lewis and McCormick & Spence, for plaintiff in error. Gano, Gano & Gano and P. M. Stine, for defendant in error.
Defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error to recover damages to her property by the falling thereon of a brick building erected by plaintiff in error. Upon trial a verdict was rendered for defendant in error, from which error was prosecuted to this court.
The question presented is: Is plaintiff in error absolutely responsible for the injury caused by the falling of his building, or does his liability depend upon whether or not he used ordinary care in the construction of same? The evidence shows that the building was constructed according to the plans and specifications of an architect, which were defective, and which defects were the cause of the building falling. The trial court erred in excluding testimony offered by plaintiff in error to the effect that he had used diligence in employing a skilled and competent architect to prepare plans and specifications before he proceeded with the erection of the building. The tendency of modern decisions is not to make the owner an insurer against accidents from defects in construction, where he has used reasonable diligence to secure a safe building. But he is answerable for the failure to exercise reasonable care and skill in its construction and keeping it in repair. Thompson on Neg. vol. 1, §§ 1056, 1058. We think the evidence was pertinent in determining whether or not the plaintiff in error used that care that was necessary in the erection of the building. Comparatively few men are skilled in the science of building houses, and of necessity they have to depend upon those who have made it a study. So, when an owner has used due care to employ an architect to prepare plans and specifications, and builds accordingly, he should not be held liable for the plans unless the defects were such that he should know of them.
It seems the court took the view that plaintiff in error was responsible for the want of skill in the architect and contractor, and so charged the jury. A special charge was refused to the effect that he would not be liable if he exercised such care in the employment of a skilled and competent architect as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fort Worth & D. Ry. Co. v. Britton
...on the ground that they committed the plan and construction of the building to a competent architect and builder. They cite White v. Green, Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W. 329, Acme Laundry Company v. Ford, Tex.Civ.App., 284 S.W.2d 745, and other authorities in support of their contention. We do not ......
-
Prest-O-Lite Company v. Skeel
... ... liable for any defects unless they were such ... [106 N.E. 367] ... that he should have known of them. White v ... Green (1904), 82 S.W. 329. Where the agreement ... provides for a result to be accomplished by the employe and ... leaves to the employe ... ...
-
Hamblen v. Mohr
...for the contractor's faults, unless it be shown that he did not use ordinary care in selecting a competent contractor. White v. Green, Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W. 329. In the present case, the undisputed proof shows that House employed a reputable architect to draft the plans and specifications f......
-
San Antonio Hermann Sons Home Ass'n v. Harvey
...to abolish the rule that he is obligated only to exercise ordinary care to select a competent architect and builder, as declared in White v. Green, supra, and makes him liable for their The Court cited White v. Green, Tex.Civ.App., 82 S.W. 329, which cites O'Connor v. Andrews, 81 Tex. 28, 1......
-
Chapter 8 - § 8.3 • EXPANDING THEORIES OF LIABILITY
...v. Union Elec. Ass'n, 841 P.2d 282 (Colo. 1992), and Huddleston v. Union Elec. Ass'n, 897 P.2d 865 (Colo. App. 1995).[304] White v. Green, 82 S.W. 329 (Tex. Civ. App. 1904).[305] Doundoulakis v. Town of Hemstead, 42 N.Y.2d 440 (N.Y. 1977).[306] Id.[307] Id. at 450-51.[308] Id. at 451.[309] ......