Barnes v. City of St. Joseph
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from. Buchanan Circuit Court. — Bo». L. J. Eastvu} Judge. . (1) Plaintiff’s instruction No. 1 is erroneous for the following reasons: It declared as a matter of law that the defect complained of was not reasonably safe. Garber v. Kansas City,. 105 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from. Buchanan Circuit Court. — Bo». L. J. Eastvu} Judge. . (1) Plaintiff’s instruction No. 1 is erroneous for the following reasons: It declared as a matter of law that the defect complained of was not reasonably safe. Garber v. Kansas City,. 105 Mo. App. 195; Jackson v. Kansas City, 106 Mo. 57.' It contradicts defendant’s instruction No. 3 in that plaintiff’s instruction declared as a matter of law that the defect was not reasonably safe, while defendant’s instruction required the jury to determine whether the defect .was reasonably safe. Baker et al. v. Railroad, 122 Mo. 550;…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
This action to recover damages for personal injuries was before us on a former appeal of defendant (139 Mo. App. 545) and was reversed and remanded on account of improper remarks of counsel for plaintiff in his argument to the jury. Another trial to a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of four thousand dollars. Defendant appealed and again complains of improper remarks in the argument of opposing counsel. Without repeating the remarks, we hold that 'while they go to the utmost limit of propriety, they manage to *527fall within the rules of forensic dehate as defined…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barnes v. City of St. JosephMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
3Cited by3 opinions
- McGarvey v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Francis v. City of West PlainsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1919
- Pearce v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911