Luecke v. United Railways Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Euro MuenchJudge. • Plaintiff’s second and third instructions are erroneous because of the use of the words, “directly contributed” in each of said instructions.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Euro MuenchJudge. • Plaintiff’s second and third instructions are erroneous because of the use of the words, “directly contributed” in each of said instructions. Schmidt v. Transit Co., 120 S. W. 96; Wilson v. Rys., (not reported); Hof v. Transit Co., 213 Mo. 445; Krehmeyer v. Transit Co., 120 S. W. 78. (1) The instructions, as a whole, confined the jury strictly to the charges of negligence submitted by the instructions, and, hence, the jury could not have been misled into tbe error of construing tbe terms “directly contributed” in the…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — The sole ground of error assigned and relied upon in this court by counsel for defendant is as to the giving of the plaintiff’s second and third instructions, it being argued that the use of the words, “directly contributed,” contained in each of said instructions, was erroneous in the light of the decisions of this court in Schmidt v. St. Louis Transit Co., 140 Mo. App. 182, 120 S. W. 96; Wilson v. United Railways Co., 142 Mo. App. 676, 121 S. W. 1083, and of the Supreme Court in Hof v. Transit Co., 213 Mo. 445 and Krehmeyer v. St. Louis Transit Co., 220 Mo. 639,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brennan v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Krehmeyer v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Hof v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Zeis v. St. Louis Brewing Ass'nSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Schmidt v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Garrett v. Wabash RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911