Shaw v. Goldman
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Eoratio D. Wood, Judge. The judgment should he reversed because the evidence undeniably shows there was no failure to exercise ordinary care on the part of defendant. Where'there is no duty there can be no negligence. Where defendant owed a duty but did not owe it to the plaintiff, he cannot recover. 1 Shearman & Redfield on Neg.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Eoratio D. Wood, Judge. The judgment should he reversed because the evidence undeniably shows there was no failure to exercise ordinary care on the part of defendant. Where'there is no duty there can be no negligence. Where defendant owed a duty but did not owe it to the plaintiff, he cannot recover. 1 Shearman & Redfield on Neg. (5 Ed.), secs. 8, 9; 1 Kinkead’s Commentaries on Torts, sec. 323; Turner v. Thomas, 71 Mo. 596; Henry v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 288; Barney v. Railway, 126 Mo-. 372; Hicks v. Railway, 16 Mo. App.‘30!; Guffey v. Railway, 53…
1Opinion of the CourtNortqni, J.
(after stating the facts). — 1. The statute (sec. 6135, R. S. 1899) is in no way involved in this case, but on the contrary the petition predicates on common law negligence. It is fundamental that in every case involving actionable negligence, there are of necessity three constituent elements to its existence.
First. The existence of a duty on the part of the person complained against to protect the complainant from the injury of which he complains.
Second. The failure of the defendant to perform that duty.
Third. Injury to the plaintiff resultant from such failure of the defendant.
Where these…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Faris v. HobergIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad v. GriffinIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Barney v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Yarnell v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Chattanooga Warehouse & Cold Storage Co. v. AndersonTennessee Supreme Court · 1918
- Loehring v. Westlake Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- State Ex Rel. Elliott's Department Store Co. v. HaidSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Evans v. Massman Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- Brett v. Century Petroleums, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1939
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.