Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hedgcorth v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 8, 1979No. 10263Published

1DissentMaus, Judge

I must respectfully dissent. The majority opinion holds that the plaintiff did not make a submissible case because he knew the door was bent. Thereby, the defendants did not breach their duty to exercise ordinary care to provide a reasonably safe car and either make repairs or warn of an unsafe condition.

I do not believe that plaintiff’s knowledge of the bent door per se bars the plaintiff from submitting his case to the jury. Such a holding is tantamount to holding that the plaintiff was required to establish that he did not know and by using ordinary care could not have known of the…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Sampson v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1978
  2. Dickerson v. St. Louis Public Service CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
  3. Gathright v. PendegraftSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
  4. Wells v. GoforthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1969
  5. Price v. SeidlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1966

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API