Inman's Administratrix v. United Railways Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Matt G. Reynolds, Judge. (1) Plaintiff was not entitiled to recover under the assignment charging failure to warn him of the car’s approach, because there Avas no evidence of such failure.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Matt G. Reynolds, Judge. (1) Plaintiff was not entitiled to recover under the assignment charging failure to warn him of the car’s approach, because there Avas no evidence of such failure. MeOreery v. Railway Company. 221 Mo. 18. (2) Plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the assignments that the car was operated at negligent speed, both at common law and under the ordinance, because — (a) The only testimony as to the car’s speed was a mere guess. McCreery v. Railway Company, 221 Mo. 18. (b) There was no showing that if the car had been…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
— Martin Inman, driving west in his buggy between the north rail of defendant’s north track along Wash street and the curb, in St. Louis, when about one hundred feet west of the intersection of Sixteenth street with Wash, found a surrey standing in the street against the north curb, the surrey, about four feet nine inches wide, facing to the west. To continue on his way and pass the surrey it was necessary to turn off and drive between the surrey and the rails or track of defendant’s road. His buggy was of the same width as. the surrey, and the space between the curb and the north rail was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stotler ex rel. Stotler v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lasby v. BurgessMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Haire v. StagnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1962
- Baker v. BrinkerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1979
- State Ex Rel. Williams v. Feld Chevrolet, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1966
- Enriquez v. Chemical Sealing Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1966