## Facts

- East Texas Theatres, Inc. owned and operated the Paramount Theatre in Marshall, Texas.
- On September 24–25, 1966, Sheila Rutledge attended a midnight show as a paying patron and sat on the main floor near an aisle along the left wall.
- During the film, there were intermittent disturbances from the balcony, including hollering and paper cups being thrown by unidentified persons.
- No specific disruptive individuals were identified, and no theatre employee removed any patrons.
- After the film ended and the lights came on, Rutledge began exiting along the aisle; an unknown person threw a whisky bottle from the balcony that struck her head.
- Rutledge sued, alleging the theatre negligently failed to remove “rowdy” balcony patrons and that this omission proximately caused her injury; her husband later joined the suit.
- A jury found negligence and proximate cause and awarded $31,250; the trial court entered judgment, and the court of civil appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether there was any probative evidence that the theatre’s failure to remove unidentified disruptive patrons was a proximate cause, specifically a cause in fact, of Rutledge’s injury caused by a bottle thrown by an unknown person.
2. Whether the evidence sufficiently connected Rutledge’s later medical complaints to the incident (not reached because the case was resolved on cause in fact).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgments below and rendered judgment that plaintiffs take nothing.
- The court held there was no evidence of probative force to support the jury’s finding that the theatre’s omission was a cause in fact of the bottle-throwing injury.
- Because cause in fact failed, the court found it unnecessary to address the additional causation question concerning later medical complaints.

## Legal Principles

- Proximate cause requires both cause in fact and foreseeability; a claim fails if cause in fact is not supported by probative evidence.
- Cause in fact ordinarily requires proof that, but for the defendant’s act or omission, the injury would not have occurred.
- Causation cannot be established by speculation or by stacking inferences (a factual presumption cannot rest on another presumption).
- When injury results from a specific act by an unidentified third party, liability for failing to control general disorder requires evidence linking the alleged omission to the particular injury-producing act.
- On “no evidence” review, courts view the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, but must still set aside findings unsupported by probative evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that, absent evidence connecting the bottle-thrower to the earlier unidentified disturbances or showing that removing those persons would have prevented the incident, the plaintiffs could not prove cause in fact; the theater therefore was not liable and plaintiffs took nothing.


East Texas Theatres, Inc. v. Rutledge, 453 S.W.2d 466 (Tex. 1970)