Budde v. United States Incandescent Lamp Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, Judge. (1) Defendant’s instruction of nonsuit should have been given, because: (a) The evidence established, without conflict, that Bryan and plaintiff were fellow servants. Robinson v. Railroad, 133 App. 117, and cases therein cited; Parker v. Railroad, 109 Mo. 362, 419; Koerner v. Car Company, 209 Mo. 153. (b) The Dual Capacity Doctrine is established in Missouri.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, Judge. (1) Defendant’s instruction of nonsuit should have been given, because: (a) The evidence established, without conflict, that Bryan and plaintiff were fellow servants. Robinson v. Railroad, 133 App. 117, and cases therein cited; Parker v. Railroad, 109 Mo. 362, 419; Koerner v. Car Company, 209 Mo. 153. (b) The Dual Capacity Doctrine is established in Missouri. Fogarty v. Transfer Co., 180 Mo. 507. (c) Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.- Collett v. Kuhlman, 243 Mo. 501. (2) Plaintiff’s instruction No. 1 is…
1Opinion
ON THE MEEITS OF THE CASE. (No. 14120).
The facts in this case> so far as concerns the accident, are sufficiently set out in the report of the case of Bryan v. United States Incandescent Lamp Co., 176 Mo. App. 716, 159 S. W. 754, so that we do not think it necessary to repeat them here any further than to meet the points now relied upon for a reversal.
The plaintiff here was severely burned as the re- • suit of the fire which followed the explosion on the-occasion referred to, and there was testimony tend-' ing to show that he was permanently disabled in one hand as the result of the burns…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Fogarty v. St. Louis Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Radtke v. St. Louis Basket & Box Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Bryan v. United States Incandescent Lamp Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913