East Texas Theatres, Inc. v. Rutledge
453 S.W.2d 466 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish proximate cause in a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove cause-in-fact, meaning the injury would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's negligent act or omission. Liability cannot be based on speculation that a defendant's failure to control a generally rowdy crowd would have prevented an isolated criminal act by an unidentified person.
Facts:
- On September 25, 1966, Sheila Rutledge was a paying patron at a midnight movie showing at the Paramount Theatre, owned by East Texas Theatres, Inc.
- During the movie, various patrons on the main floor and in the balcony were 'hollering' intermittently and throwing paper cups.
- The commotion was described as getting quieter towards the end of the show, and all disturbances had ceased by the time the movie ended.
- After the film concluded and the lights were turned on, Rutledge was walking up an aisle to exit the theatre.
- As she walked, an unidentified person in the balcony threw a glass bottle, which struck Rutledge on the head, causing injury.
- There was no evidence identifying the person who threw the bottle or linking that individual to the group of patrons who had been hollering or throwing paper cups earlier.
Procedural Posture:
- Sheila Rutledge and her husband, Roy Voyles, sued East Texas Theatres, Inc. in a Texas trial court for negligence.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, finding the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the injuries and awarding $31,250.00 in damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs based on the jury verdict.
- The defendant, East Texas Theatres, Inc., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a theatre owner's failure to remove generally 'rowdy' patrons constitute a proximate cause of injuries sustained by another patron who was struck by a bottle thrown by an unidentified person?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, Justice
No. The theatre owner's failure to remove rowdy patrons was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries because there is no evidence establishing the element of cause-in-fact. The court reasoned that proximate cause requires both foreseeability and cause-in-fact, which is the 'but for' test. The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that 'but for' the theatre's failure to remove the 'rowdy persons' (those hollering and throwing cups), the bottle would not have been thrown. There was no proof that the bottle-thrower was part of the rowdy group, so any conclusion that removing that group would have prevented the injury is pure speculation. The court rejected the plaintiff's theory that the theatre's inaction 'guaranteed anonymity' to the wrongdoer, stating that a presumption of fact cannot rest upon another presumed fact.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent requirements for proving the 'cause-in-fact' element of proximate cause, particularly in cases involving third-party criminal acts. The decision establishes that a defendant's general negligence in failing to control a crowd is not legally sufficient to establish causation for a specific, isolated act by an unidentified wrongdoer. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to hold property owners liable for random acts of violence unless they can draw a direct, non-speculative causal link between the owner's omission and the specific act that caused the harm. It reinforces the principle that liability cannot be built by stacking one presumption upon another.
Unlock the full brief for East Texas Theatres, Inc. v. Rutledge