Eberly v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.— Hon. A. D. Burnes, Judge. (1) The lower court erred in refusing appellant’s demurrer to the evidence because the evidence did not prove nor tend to prove that the rail fell directly on respondent’s foot, but that it rebounded or. rolled on it after falling.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.— Hon. A. D. Burnes, Judge. (1) The lower court erred in refusing appellant’s demurrer to the evidence because the evidence did not prove nor tend to prove that the rail fell directly on respondent’s foot, but that it rebounded or. rolled on it after falling. (2) Where the plaintiff’s own evidence is inconclusive and that of his other witnesses fail to support the issue on his part, but rather that of the opposite party there is not sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury. Rottmann v. Bohlmann, 28 Mo-. App. 399; Weaver v. Railway, 60 Mo. App. 207;…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting to plaintiff on account of the negligence of the defendant. The specific negligence relied on by plaintiff for a recovery was alleged in the petition in this wise: that is to say, that while plaintiff with the other section hands and section foreman were engaged in lifting and loading old steel rails on a push car, the said section hands and section foreman while acting for and in behalf of defendant and in the line of their duties, and while plaintiff was performing the duties of his employment, did without any fault or…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Huhn v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Gratiot v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Weber v. Kansas City Cable Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Tabler v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Keim v. Union Railway & Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1886
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Baker v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- McKinstry v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904