Mobil Chemical Company v. Bell
1974 Tex. LEXIS 339, 18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 113, 517 S.W.2d 245 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that permits a jury to infer negligence from the circumstances of an event if the character of the accident is such that it would not ordinarily occur absent negligence and the instrumentality causing the injury was under the defendant's control when the probable negligence occurred.
Facts:
- Mobil Chemical Company (Mobil) contracted with C. F. Braun and Company to construct a new chemical plant.
- After C. F. Braun completed a section of the plant designated as Unit A, Mobil conducted tests, accepted the unit, and began the 'commissioning' process, taking exclusive management and control.
- Edward L. Bell and J. A. Hurley, employees of C. F. Braun, were working on an adjacent, unfinished Unit B.
- On April 4, 1966, a pressure relief mechanism in Unit A failed due to a pressure surge, and Mobil maintenance personnel repaired it.
- On April 5, 1966, the same pressure relief mechanism failed again during another pressure surge, causing acetic acid under high pressure to spurt violently from a quarter-inch pipe.
- The escaping acetic acid vapor traveled approximately 70 feet to where Bell and Hurley were working, causing both men to suffer respiratory damage.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward L. Bell and J. A. Hurley sued Mobil Chemical Company in a Texas district court (trial court) for personal injuries.
- The plaintiffs pleaded specific acts of negligence and, in the alternative, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
- The jury found against the plaintiffs on the specific negligence claims but found in their favor on the res ipsa loquitur issues, determining that Mobil failed to use ordinary care.
- The trial court entered a judgment for each plaintiff for $12,000.
- Mobil Chemical Company, as appellant, appealed to the court of civil appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of civil appeals held that the res ipsa loquitur theory was improperly submitted to the jury, reversed the trial court's judgment, and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The Supreme Court of Texas granted a writ of error to review the proper method of submitting a res ipsa loquitur case to a jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a negligence case based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, must the jury be asked to make separate findings on the foundational elements of the doctrine, such as whether the accident would ordinarily not occur without negligence and whether the defendant had control of the instrumentality?
Opinions:
Majority - McGee, Justice.
No. The better practice in the great majority of res ipsa loquitur cases is to submit only the ultimate negligence issue to the jury, not separate questions on the doctrine's foundational elements. The foundational factors—that the accident is of a type that does not ordinarily occur without negligence and that the defendant controlled the instrumentality—are primarily for the trial judge to consider in determining whether the plaintiff has produced enough evidence to submit the case to the jury. Submitting these factors as separate issues to the jury is unnecessary, duplicitous, and may cause confusion. A jury's finding of negligence necessarily includes findings that the foundational elements were met. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence that allows, but does not compel, an inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence, shifting the burden of production, but not the ultimate burden of persuasion, to the defendant.
Concurring - Daniel, Justice
I concur in the result. As I understand the Court’s opinion, the manner of submission of the issues by the trial court would not be reversible error in this case.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the procedural handling of res ipsa loquitur cases in Texas, solidifying the doctrine's status as a rule of evidence that creates a permissible inference of negligence, not a legal presumption. By endorsing the broad-form submission of a single ultimate negligence question, the court simplified jury charges, reducing the potential for confusion and conflicting answers to sub-issues. This ruling streamlines litigation by focusing the jury's attention on the core question of negligence and gives trial courts more discretion to provide explanatory instructions, influencing how future negligence cases that rely on circumstantial evidence are presented to juries.
