Lexplug logoLexplug

Turner v. Big Lake Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Texas
128 Tex. 155, 96 S.W.2d 221 (1936)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In Texas, an owner who impounds substances on their land, such as salt water from oil operations, is not held to a standard of strict liability for damages caused by the substance's escape. Liability for such damages must be predicated upon proof of negligence.


Facts:

  • Big Lake Oil Co. operated oil wells in Reagan County, Texas.
  • As part of its operations, the company constructed large, artificial earthen ponds to hold polluted salt water, a byproduct from the wells.
  • Salt water escaped from one or more of these ponds.
  • The escaped water flowed over the grasslands of property owners, referred to as Turner.
  • The salt water damaged the turf on Turner's land and flowed into natural water holes used by Turner's livestock.

Procedural Posture:

  • Turner sued Big Lake Oil Co. in the District Court (trial court) for damages caused by the escaping salt water.
  • The case was submitted to a jury, which found that Big Lake Oil Co. allowed the salt water to escape but was not negligent in doing so.
  • The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Big Lake Oil Co.
  • Turner, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals.
  • The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that proof of negligence was a necessary element for recovery.
  • Turner, as plaintiff in error, sought review from the Supreme Court of Texas.

Locked

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 the escape of salt water from an artificial pond, causing damage to neighboring property, create liability without a showing of negligence?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Cureton

No. The escape of salt water from an artificial pond does not create liability without a showing of negligence. The court held that liability for damages caused by the escape of substances impounded on land must be based on negligence, explicitly repudiating the English common law rule of strict liability from Rylands v. Fletcher. The court reasoned that Texas had already departed from the common law bases for the Rylands rule in other areas, such as liability for fires and straying animals. Furthermore, the court distinguished the meteorological and industrial conditions of Texas from those of England, arguing that the storage of water for industries like ranching and oil production is a 'natural' and necessary use of land in Texas, unlike in England where it might be considered a 'non-natural' use. Because the impounding of water is a common and necessary practice, liability should only attach if the defendant fails to exercise due care.



Analysis:

This decision formally establishes negligence as the controlling standard for liability concerning escaping impounded substances in Texas, decisively rejecting the Rylands v. Fletcher doctrine of strict liability. The court's reasoning, grounded in the unique geographical and economic conditions of the state, showcases how American jurisdictions adapt English common law to local circumstances. This ruling created a more favorable legal environment for key Texas industries, particularly oil production and agriculture, by requiring plaintiffs to prove fault rather than allowing recovery based on causation alone. The case serves as a foundational precedent in Texas tort law for cases involving industrial land use and environmental damage.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Turner v. Big Lake Oil Co. (1936) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Turner v. Big Lake Oil Co.