*1 nnn injured contributing proximately COMPANY, Appellant, ACME of the drunken of an en- driver LAUNDRY . tirely different automobile.” v Appe llee. We do be FORD, not believe our sub- William E. ject appellants make. criticism We No. 5125. Mooneyhan did not was re- hold Mrs. Appeals sponsible one’s her Court of Civil conduct but own. of Texas. was dead drunk of the She and the driver El Paso. car which she was intoxicated riding was Oct. 1955.
and his intoxication contributed to the col- holding lision. The reasons for cannot she Rehearing Denied Nov. 1955. fully recover under circumstances are these stated in the cases cited
opinion. Appellants complain holding, hand, complain one “failure their of the failure of the to answer the special inquiring issue whether the drunken proximate
condition of cause appellants’ recovery of the collision bars Court, holding while on other hand as a matter of law that the drunken con- prox-
dition of host driver was a imate cause of collision in a matter of law when no issues were even If, questions.
submitted as this holds, driving appel- Court the drunken proximate lant’s host was a of the cause clearly collision matter of then driving drunken was also a proximate cause of collision a matter law.” appellants
We did not hold that could not recover because the failed to find that appellee’s proximate intoxication was a
cause the collision. Our decision would same if we appel- assumed held as suggest lants It goes should. without however, repeating, that the evidence as to being intoxication entirely collision is different as to each driv- er.
Our is to affirm the trial if we can do court’s so under theory with the law and facts. consistent Also, do decide unneces disposition sary to a of a case.' These are matters. fundamental The motion overruled. Motion overruled. *2 negligence plaintiff, and that such proximate cause of the accident. main contention is that open panel question a just it the size of as was formed and not doorway was clear accident, giv- thus the time of the
visible at an panel appearance of ing the was doorway, and hence the defendant or warn- negligent keeping barriers presence signs of ing to warn customers
deceiving glass of this panel.
n There was evidence that build Feuille, El Hardie, Grambling Sims & ing in accordance with was constructed Paso, appellant. for architect, competent by plans by a drawn a Hulse, Scott, El Rasberry & Burges, competent no builder. There is evidence Paso, appellee. for upon appel part of of
lant in the selection of the architect builder, a nor is the construction of build n McGILL, Justice. inherently ing type dangerous of as this so by personal injury brought public suit that it is a This is a to warrant the conclusion appellant Apart question for damages appellee against for of con nuisance. he by part tributory negligence plain when of sustained personal glass win- a how and broke tiff we cannot see the defendant violat against walked laundry. any duty The leaving appellant’s owing plaintiff. it to ed dow when a verdict jury, testimony conflicting a to to as was tried case bumped rendered persons the court had into the whether favorable appellant. against $1,353.50 glass window met with for before judgment accident, whether the defendant the trial court points are Appellant’s assume, this fact. If we knew of in- motion for an overruling its erred must, judgment, in favor of the that other judg- and its motion verdict structed bumped panel persons had into the verdict, notwithstanding ment accident, we think such fact prior appellant rendering ques no material bearing could have appellee. in favor negligence. defendant’s is no tion of There what evidence as to under circumstances as a is that first contention Appellant’s bumped persons into the if such undisputed facts under matter did, they therefore such evidence has actionable was question bearing material of defend wall ant’s In answer located. designed it ' dealing found that the de- Of the decisions Texas with a 1 the No. here, situation glass wall fact have a solid case of maintained fendant Stasny, appear Tex.Civ.App., Burton located as A. C. Co. designed so (error doorway, refused) answer 223 S.W.2d is most an nearly point. that case alleged found that it is subsequent negli- negligent that defendant to maintain a wall'was maintenance appearance acci- all the window had gence neg- persons an door so as to ap- the defendant lead found They also dent. think was proaching open door, suitable bar- an to maintain a ligent window was completely of said wall for transparent in front obstruction rier or polished, premises, persons highly and not visible to protection .of person approaching ing. it from the inside. The The fact that he could not see the found in not' negligent defendant after entering did *3 rail, deprive and guard not knowledge him of the that place markings there, and found it was but should have warned walking his him with head that necessary it was plaintiff for him to as- down and certain where making was before his plaintiff exit, that case was a business in- order to avoid accidents. He vitee who saw the window when he entered was manifestly guilty premises. the breaking It was that there was no held the glass.” duty violation of a glass shown as win- Certainly, bar, plaintiff the case at the danger, dow was not a hidden hut was a glass knew that the glass doors and the ordinary normal or risk which the windows were there. As said in the Arkan- as an invitee assumed. In this case it is case, sas the fact that he could not see the apparent appellee, previous that from his glass after entering the' building did not transactions the with oc- deprive him of the knowledge that it was question, casion in knew the location of the He should there. have ascertained where glass panels constituting doors and the front blindly was before attempting to make his appellant’s place They of business. exit. obvious, readily were and dis- anyone, cernible not concealed in The case ot Houston Nat. Bank v. There was evidence that at manner. the Adair, 387, 146 374, Tex. lays S.W.2d time of accident were percep- not down the rule which we think applicable is goes tible. The evidence no further than to case, is, in this that that as a business in appellee panels. did not see that vitee laundry owed Mr. Ford the duty Clardy Hudspeth, 89 Ark. 115 S. protect conditions in the 1134, L.R.A.,N.S., W. premises which would involve an unreason plate the defendant for breaking sued able risk to safety, his the danger of which glass building. window in his The defend would not be person obvious ato ground denied ant that exercising ordinary care. No such risk plate building glass front, had a includ involved, was here and in opinion our doors, ing glass though which discernible appellant was guilty of no breach were puzzling from the outside to an ordi Ford, owed to Mr. and is not liable in nary person well acquainted with the damages for he suffered. premises; that he had been in the building before, only once when he started out follows, therefore, It that thought what he toward a door his request for an instructed verdict should glass knee struck the window and broke the have granted. been We order that glass. The court said: judgment of the trial court be reversed and judgment here rendered that take “Appellant deny does not that he nothing. post knew that the office had a front, including glass doors. He On Motion for Rehearing states ‘that from the the doors sidewalk easily distinguished are In his motion for rehearing appellee view, portion of the front but after en- states that the statement in original our building referring shape, tering interior doors and the panels front, puz- with ordinary person, zling especially “they were and read- time, as light him at the from the ily anyone, discernible to and not con- was reflected his west It is face.’ cealed manner” that he knew that the evident front, had a plate is in direct conflict with the evidence in the doors, the time he entered at the build- case. statement We think any manner. repre- photographic hereto is a Attached com- which opinion of the, panels door
sentation compelled warranted, but only plains is photograph think question. We evidence. the doors supports statement rehearing is over- readily Appellee’s motion open and obvious were ruled. anyone, not concealed discernible