Home/Texas Supreme Court/Radley v. Knepfly

Radley v. Knepfly

135 S.W. 111, 104 Tex. 130, 1911 Tex. LEXIS 131
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 1, 1911
DocketNo. 2134.
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 135 S.W. 111 (Radley v. Knepfly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Radley v. Knepfly, 135 S.W. 111, 104 Tex. 130, 1911 Tex. LEXIS 131 (Tex. 1911).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Ramsey

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought in the District Court of Dallas County b)r plaintiffs in error against Mrs. Magdalene Knepfly to recover damages resulting from the death of R. F. Radley, caused by a fire in the Knepfly building, situated at the corner of Main and Poydras streets, in the city of Dallas, due, as was averred, to the negligence of Mrs. Knepfly in failing to provide said building, or, at least the third story thereof which was used as a lodging house, with suitable and proper fire escapes as required by the ordinances of the city of Dallas.

At the trial had in said court the judge instructed a verdict peremptorily for the defendant in error. This judgment was, on appeal, affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District. That court held that the cause of action asserted by appellants was defeated on four different propositions: (1) That under the charter of the city of Dallas it was without authority to enact the ordinance the failure to observe which was claimed to have caused the damages sued for. (2) That, if the power to enact this ordinance be conceded, it was, by its terms, oppressive, unreasonable and therefore void. (3) That, under the facts, the deceased assumed the risks and hazard which caused his death, and (4) as a conclusion of fact from the testimony introduced that the failure on the part of the defendant in error to comply with said ordinance relied on was not the proximate cause of the death of R. F. Radley. It follows, logically, that, if the Court of Civil Appeals is correct on either of these propositions, its judgment should be affirmed.

In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived we have deemed it unnecessary to consider the first three propositions, all involving questions of law decided by the Court of Civil Appeals, though our failure so to do is not to be considered as an affirmance of the correctness of any of them. We have concluded, however, that, in view of the facts appearing in the record, that court was correct in *132 holding that under the uncontradicted evidence in the case the plaintiffs in error were not entitled to recover.

'The uncontradicted evidence showed that what was known as the Knepfly building in the city of Dallas was a three story structure and that the third story was occupied as a lodging house. This building fronted on Main street with a frontage of approximately twenty-five feet and ran back on Poydras street a distance of something like seventy-five feet. The following plat will disclose the general plan of the third story of the building, with its subdivision into rooms and hallways. [Plat on next page.]

The facts immediately preceding the unfortunate death of Radley are disclosed in the testimony of John R. Minor. This witness was introduced by plaintiffs in error and was shown to be the room-mate of Radley. It was also shown in the evidence that he had himself brought a suit against the defendant in error for damages for injuries sustained on the occasion of the fire in question. The following statement, taken from the direct examination, covers, in a general way, the actions of himself and Radley on the immediate occasion of the fire:

“We slept with our heads towards the west. When I got up I went from the side of the bed around the end, and sat down on the floor and the floor was hot. I got up and sat down on the end of the bed, and it brought me in view of the door, and I saw the smoke coming in; three little curls under the hall door, and then I halloed to Mr. Radley to get up, the building was on fire, then I ran to the Poydras end of the building, and broke out the' window Avith a little hammer laying on the window seat. The north window. I broke out the window with the hammer and punched the screen out with my hand. I could see the smoke coming from the second story. The wind blew the smoke in my face. Just as I turned around, Mr. Radley opened the door to the hall; the west door, and the flames shot in there and I threw my hands up to my face to protect myself, and Mr. Radley came staggering back, and I ran and caught him and carried him to the window. I carried him to the north window. As soon as I saw him going through the side, I jumped through the south window. He jumped first, and I jumped right after. I never heard him say anything at all, when he opened the door into the hall. He never, said anything after he got up. I broke out the window and looked out, and as I turned around, he opened the door. He seemed to have picked his clothes up and threw them around him. Threw his coat around his shoulders. I had on a suit of underwear.. I never had on any shoes. I didn’t notice Avhether he had on shoes or not. South of the door from our room into the hall, there was a window, it had a shade over it. I think it was a wire glass window. It AVas colored opaque; you could not see through it. There was no notice of any fire except the smoke and heat. When the door was opened, it was all on fire, the door looked like a solid mass of flame. That was out in the hall, coming in through the door as soon as the door was opened. That flame appeared to be coming up directly through the stairway, „our door opened onto the side of the stairway and the stairway came up the side of the building. It was four or five feet
*133

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

Related

Ellis B. Hall, Charles R. Hall and Eunice E. Hall v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
504 F.2d 380 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
Tibbits v. Crowell
434 S.W.2d 919 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1968)
Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. McCleery
418 S.W.2d 494 (Texas Supreme Court, 1967)
Lee v. Carwile
168 So. 2d 469 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Bolstad v. Egleson
326 S.W.2d 506 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1959)
City of Waco v. Stinnett
177 S.W.2d 323 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1943)
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Robinson
162 S.W.2d 984 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Bullard
128 S.W.2d 126 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Mauk v. Texas Pipe Line Co.
93 S.W.2d 820 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Ramirez v. Salinas
90 S.W.2d 891 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Dyess v. Davey Tree Expert Co.
44 S.W.2d 911 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1932)
City of Houston v. Scanlan
37 S.W.2d 718 (Texas Supreme Court, 1931)
Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. American Grocery Co.
36 S.W.2d 985 (Texas Supreme Court, 1931)
Tracey v. Wichita Ice Co.
30 S.W.2d 673 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. American Grocery Co.
25 S.W.2d 588 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1930)
Baugh v. McCleskey
292 S.W. 950 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Werst v. International-Great Northern R.
286 S.W. 529 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Dossett
265 S.W. 259 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Missouri State Life Ins. v. Dossett
265 S.W. 254 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Robertson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
255 S.W. 223 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 S.W. 111, 104 Tex. 130, 1911 Tex. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radley-v-knepfly-tex-1911.