## Facts

- The El Paso Chamber of Commerce sponsored and promoted an annual rodeo and a “dress western” publicity campaign.
- The campaign included a stunt in which people not wearing western attire could be roped, taken to corrals, and subjected to minor “hot seat” shocks until they bought rodeo-related items.
- The Chamber did not formally employ “ropers,” but it supervised the corrals and permitted volunteers to rope and deliver people to the corrals as part of the promotion.
- Claude Weaver volunteered as a roper and participated in the campaign by approaching and roping people for delivery to the corrals.
- Moore and her mother walked downtown without western attire; Weaver and other ropers moved toward them and made remarks indicating an intent to “get” Moore.
- Moore and her mother fled into a hotel drugstore; Weaver chased them inside.
- Trying to escape into the hotel lobby, Moore pushed through a door with a glass panel, thrust her hand through the glass, and suffered serious injuries.
- Moore sued the Chamber, alleging tort liability based on the roping campaign and the pursuit that caused her injury.
- A jury found Weaver acted within the Chamber’s authority, and that his conduct proximately caused Moore’s injury and damages, but also found Moore contributorily negligent in her method of escape.
- The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment on the theory that contributory negligence barred recovery.

## Issues

1. Whether the Chamber could be held vicariously liable for torts committed by volunteer ropers acting in furtherance of the Chamber’s supervised promotional campaign.
2. Whether the ropers’ conduct constituted an intentional tort (assault) rather than ordinary negligence, making contributory negligence inapplicable as a complete defense.
3. Whether the chase and attempted roping were a proximate cause of Moore’s injury sustained while fleeing, or whether Moore’s actions broke the causal chain.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the take-nothing judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The court held the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the volunteer ropers acted with the Chamber’s knowledge and implied authority in carrying out the promotion.
- The court treated the pursuit and attempted roping as conduct that could constitute assault, not merely negligence.
- Because the action was grounded in an intentional tort, the court held contributory negligence did not bar Moore’s recovery.
- The court concluded the injury during flight could be found proximately caused by the assaultive conduct because the escape attempt was a foreseeable response to the threat.

## Legal Principles

- An organization may be vicariously liable for torts committed by volunteers when the organization sponsors, supervises, or authorizes the volunteers’ conduct as part of its activity, even without formal employment.
- Assault includes intentional acts creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
- Contributory negligence is not a defense that defeats liability for an intentional tort such as assault or battery.
- Injuries sustained while reasonably fleeing an assault may be treated as proximately caused by the assault when the flight is a foreseeable reaction and not an independent, extraordinary act.

## Conclusion

The court held that a supervised promotional “roping” campaign could make the sponsoring organization responsible for volunteers’ assaultive conduct, and that Moore’s contributory negligence finding could not bar recovery where the claim rested on intentional tort principles and the injury was a foreseeable result of fleeing the threatened contact.


Moore v. El Paso Chamber of Commerce, 220 S.W.2d 327 (Tex. Civ. App. 1949)