Mobil Chemical Co. v. Bell
Supreme Court of Texas
517 S.W.2d 245 (1974)
Bell and Hurley (plaintiffs), contractors constructing a chemical plant, were injured when a release valve on equipment Mobil Chemical Co. (defendant) had accepted and maintained failed, causing a ruptured pipe and a 30-foot geyser of acid that gave them acid-vapor inhalation injuries. Mobil had extensively tested and accepted the equipment two weeks before the accident and had performed maintenance, replacing parts of the very valve that later failed. At trial, Mobil's own expert testified the pipe failed due to a manufacturing or installation defect, but the jury, without finding any specific negligent act, still found Mobil negligent under a res ipsa loquitur theory. The appellate court reversed, and Mobil appealed further, arguing res ipsa loquitur shouldn't have gone to the jury given its own expert's contrary testimony.
Whether res ipsa loquitur creates a circumstantial inference of negligence, without proof of any specific negligent act, when an instrumentality within the defendant's control caused a type of accident that does not usually occur absent negligence.