Cantu v. Walsh & Burney Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Cantu v. Walsh & Burney Co.

390 S.W.2d 21

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 7, 1965

DocketNo. 14371

StatusPublished

This text of 390 S.W.2d 21 (Cantu v. Walsh & Burney Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cantu v. Walsh & Burney Co., 390 S.W.2d 21 (Tex. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment that appellant, Jose S. Cantu, take nothing from appellee, Walsh & Burney Company.

On January 20, 1962, appellant was undertaking to start a plaster mixing machine by pulling a rope. The rope broke and he fell through an opening in the basement floor into the sub-basement and very severely injured himself. Appellant brought this suit against Walsh & Burney Company, the general contractor on the construction job of the new Methodist Hospital in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Leland Hastings was the sub-contractor to do the plastering on this construction job, and Cantu was an employee of Hastings. The plaster mixer had been placed about ten feet from this hole in the basement floor so that after the mortar had been mixed it could be run through a chute into the sub-basement. Cantu was familiar with the premises and had been working around the plaster mixer for several days. At first the mortar had been run through a chute in the elevator shaft, but the shaft was needed by other workers, so the mixer was moved to a new location about ten feet from the hole in the floor through which Cantu fell. The rope that broke was a new rope belonging to Leland Hastings, and Walsh & Burney Company was in no way responsible for the rope. The hole was open and obvious, and Cantu knew the hole was not covered and did not have a guard rail around it. Leland Hastings did not have authority to cover the hole or place a guard rail around it, only Walsh & Burney Company had authority to do that.

Appellant knew he was working next to the hole, because he had been working there for two days. He helped place the plaster mixer where it was, and helped place some boards over the hole to hold the chute in place. The hole was necessary [22]*22in order to get the plaster into the subbasement where it was needed. The open unguarded hole was as well known and as obvious to appellant as it was to appellee, therefore, appellee did not owe appellant any duty to warn him about the hole or to place a guard rail around it. Wesson v. Gillespie, 382 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.1964); Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., 371 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.1963); Houston Nat. Bank v. Adair, 146 Tex. 387, 207 S.W.2d 374; Marshall v. San Jacinto Bldg., Tex.Civ.App., 67 S.W.2d 372.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MURRAY, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment that appellant, Jose S. Cantu, take nothing from appellee, Walsh & Burney Company.

On January 20, 1962, appellant was undertaking to start a plaster mixing machine by pulling a rope. The rope broke and he fell through an opening in the basement floor into the sub-basement and very severely injured himself. Appellant brought this suit against Walsh & Burney Company, the general contractor on the construction job of the new Methodist Hospital in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Leland Hastings was the sub-contractor to do the plastering on this construction job, and Cantu was an employee of Hastings. The plaster mixer had been placed about ten feet from this hole in the basement floor so that after the mortar had been mixed it could be run through a chute into the sub-basement. Cantu was familiar with the premises and had been working around the plaster mixer for several days. At first the mortar had been run through a chute in the elevator shaft, but the shaft was needed by other workers, so the mixer was moved to a new location about ten feet from the hole in the floor through which Cantu fell. The rope that broke was a new rope belonging to Leland Hastings, and Walsh & Burney Company was in no way responsible for the rope. The hole was open and obvious, and Cantu knew the hole was not covered and did not have a guard rail around it. Leland Hastings did not have authority to cover the hole or place a guard rail around it, only Walsh & Burney Company had authority to do that.

Appellant knew he was working next to the hole, because he had been working there for two days. He helped place the plaster mixer where it was, and helped place some boards over the hole to hold the chute in place. The hole was necessary [22]*22in order to get the plaster into the subbasement where it was needed. The open unguarded hole was as well known and as obvious to appellant as it was to appellee, therefore, appellee did not owe appellant any duty to warn him about the hole or to place a guard rail around it. Wesson v. Gillespie, 382 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.1964); Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc., 371 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.1963); Houston Nat. Bank v. Adair, 146 Tex. 387, 207 S.W.2d 374; Marshall v. San Jacinto Bldg., Tex.Civ.App., 67 S.W.2d 372.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 S.W.2d 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantu-v-walsh-burney-co-texapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack