Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton

Supreme Court of Texas
898 S.W.2d 773 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant's conduct or product is not the legal cause of a plaintiff's injuries if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injuries possible. Legal causation is not established when the forces generated by the defendant's actions have come to rest and the plaintiff's injuries are too remotely connected to the defendant's conduct.

Facts:

A pump manufactured by Union Pump Company, which had previously caught fire twice, caught fire again at a Texaco Chemical Company facility on September 4, 1989.
Sue Allbritton, a Texaco employee who had just finished her shift, was directed to assist in fighting the fire.
Approximately two hours later, the fire was extinguished.
After the fire was out, Allbritton and her supervisor, Felipe Subia, were instructed to block a nitrogen purge valve.
To reach the valve, Allbritton and Subia took a shortcut over a wet, two-and-a-half-foot-high pipe rack while still wearing firefighting gear.
After being informed the valve did not need to be blocked, they chose to return via the same shortcut over the pipe rack.
Allbritton was injured when she hopped or slipped off the wet pipe rack.

Procedural Posture:

Sue Allbritton sued Union Pump Company in a Texas trial court for negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability.
Union Pump Company filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not the legal cause of Allbritton's injuries.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Union Pump Company.
Allbritton, as appellant, appealed the decision to the intermediate court of appeals.
The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for trial.
Union Pump Company, as petitioner, appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.

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 defendant's product that causes a fire constitute the legal cause of injuries sustained by a plaintiff after the fire has been extinguished and the plaintiff is injured while leaving the scene?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Owen

No. A defendant's conduct is not the legal cause of an injury if it merely furnishes the condition that makes the injury possible, particularly when the forces generated by the initial incident have come to rest. Common to both proximate and producing cause is the requirement that the defendant's conduct be a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Citing Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, the court reasoned that at some point, the causal chain may be too attenuated to constitute legal cause. In this case, the forces generated by the pump fire had come to rest when Allbritton fell; the fire had been extinguished and she was walking away from the scene. The pump fire did no more than create the condition (a wet pipe rack) that made her injuries possible and was therefore too remote to be the legal cause.

Concurring - Justice Cornyn

No. Although the defective pump was a cause-in-fact of the injury, it was not the legal cause. The majority's opinion improperly conflates the factual inquiry of cause-in-fact with the policy-based inquiry of legal cause. A proper analysis separates these two steps. Here, the pump was a clear 'but-for' cause. However, legal cause fails because the injury was not foreseeable; it resulted from a 'needlessly dangerous shortcut taken after the crisis had subsided.' For strict liability, the injury did not occur in a 'natural and continuous sequence' from the defect. The court should maintain a clear distinction between the factual cause-in-fact analysis and the policy-driven legal cause analysis.

Dissenting - Justice Spector

Yes. A fact issue exists as to whether the defendant's conduct was the legal cause of the injury because the forces generated by the fire had not come to rest at the time of the injury. The emergency situation was continuing, as evidenced by the area being covered in water and foam and Allbritton still wearing firefighting gear. Unlike the cases relied on by the majority, no negligent third party intervened to cause the injury here. Therefore, the question of causation and comparative responsibility should have been submitted to a jury, and summary judgment was improper.

Analysis:

This case significantly clarifies the boundaries of legal causation in Texas tort law by reinforcing the distinction between 'cause-in-fact' and 'legal cause.' The court's holding establishes that even if an event would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's conduct, liability does not attach if the conduct merely created a condition for the injury and was too remote. This 'condition versus cause' distinction provides defendants a powerful tool for obtaining summary judgment in cases with attenuated causal chains. The sharply-written concurrence highlights the ongoing judicial debate about the proper analytical framework, arguing for a clearer separation between the factual and policy components of causation analysis.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature