Tex-Jersey Oil Corp. v. Beck
292 S.W.2d 803, 1956 Tex. App. LEXIS 1710 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant whose negligence creates a dangerous condition is liable for resulting harm, even if the immediate trigger is a natural event, as an 'act of God' is not a defense when the defendant's negligence is a concurrent proximate cause of the injury.
Facts:
- Tex-Jersey Oil Corporation and Great Expectations Oil Company owned and operated an oil tank battery in the City of Kilgore, Texas.
- The tank battery was located approximately 50 feet from a house occupied by Christine Beck and her three children.
- The defendants stored crude oil in a tank that was not vapor-proof and had open holes in its top, allowing flammable vapors to escape into the atmosphere.
- A City of Kilgore ordinance made it unlawful to use any storage tank that was not vapor-proof.
- On April 28, 1953, lightning struck the tank battery, igniting the escaping vapors.
- The ignition caused one of the tanks to explode, spreading burning oil onto the nearby house.
- The burning oil set the house on fire, resulting in the deaths of Christine Beck and two of her children, Lorenzo Beck and Elizabeth Beck.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul M. Branch, as administrator for the estates of the deceased, and others sued Tex-Jersey Oil Corporation and Great Expectations Oil Company in a Texas trial court for wrongful death and survival damages.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found that the defendants' negligence was a proximate cause of the deaths and that the incident was not an 'act of God.'
- The jury awarded damages totaling $35,000 to the plaintiffs.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
- Defendants filed amended motions for a new trial, which the court denied after plaintiffs agreed to a remittitur of $4,800 from the damages awarded to Ernestine Beck.
- The defendants, Tex-Jersey and Great Expectations, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
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 an oil company's negligence in maintaining a non-vapor-proof oil tank with open holes, in violation of a city ordinance, constitute a proximate cause of an explosion and resulting deaths triggered by a lightning strike, thereby negating an 'act of God' defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Fanning, Justice
Yes, the oil company's negligence constitutes a proximate cause of the explosion and resulting deaths. The court held that the defendants' violation of the city ordinance requiring vapor-proof tanks constituted negligence per se. Additionally, the jury's finding that maintaining the tank with open holes was negligence in fact was supported by sufficient evidence. The court reasoned that the lightning strike, while a natural event, was a foreseeable occurrence that acted upon the dangerous condition created by the defendants' negligence. Expert testimony established that a properly sealed and grounded tank would not have exploded, as there would have been no escaping vapors to ignite. Therefore, the lightning was not an independent, superseding cause that would absolve the defendants of liability; their negligence was a concurrent cause of the catastrophe, making the 'act of God' defense inapplicable.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle of concurrent causation, particularly in the context of the 'act of God' defense. It establishes that a defendant cannot escape liability by pointing to a natural event if their own negligence created the hazardous condition that allowed the natural event to cause harm. The decision reinforces the high standard of care required for those handling inherently dangerous materials, mandating they anticipate and protect against foreseeable natural phenomena. Furthermore, it serves as a strong example of the negligence per se doctrine, where the violation of a public safety ordinance is treated as conclusive proof of a breach of duty.
