Beckermann v. E. H. Kortkamp Jewelry Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. J. Hugo Grimm, Judge. (1) The defendant’s demurrer to the evidence offered at the close of plaintiff’s case and again at the close of all the evidence in the case, should have been sustained because there was no evidence of any negligence on the part of defendant. It is fundamental that in an action for damages based on negligence a demurrer to the evidence should he sustained when the evidence fails to show any negligence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. J. Hugo Grimm, Judge. (1) The defendant’s demurrer to the evidence offered at the close of plaintiff’s case and again at the close of all the evidence in the case, should have been sustained because there was no evidence of any negligence on the part of defendant. It is fundamental that in an action for damages based on negligence a demurrer to the evidence should he sustained when the evidence fails to show any negligence. Chandler v. Gas Co., 174 Mo. 321; Harper v. Eailroad, 187 Mo. 575. (2) The plaintiff himself was guilty of contributory…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
This is. an action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff by reason of falling into a hatchway, or opening, in the floor of the defendant’s store in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiff recovered and the defendant prosecutes the appeal.
The defendant, appellant here, operated a retail jewelry store in the city of St. Louis. The store was fitted up with showcases, and the portion of the premises with which we are concerned consisted of a passageway, intended for the use of customers, between a row of showcases near one end of the wall of the building and a semicircular showcase standing out…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Knapp v. HanleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Kean v. SchoeningMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Chilton v. HalsteadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Joyce v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Hurst v. Nineteen Hundred Nine Mining Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Southern Express Co. v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of Florida · 1913
- May v. HexterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1950
- Baldwin v. Hanley & Kinsella Coffee Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1919
- Johnston v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1922
- Brown v. Quercus Lumber Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.