Stutzke v. Consumers Ice & Fuel Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Eon. George G. Eitchcoclc, Judge. (1) The court should have sustained the defend-ant’s demurrer to the evidence at the close of all the evidence, (a) The plaintiff’s second amended petition does not state a cause of action. The right of recovery is predicated upon the theory that the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury was the defendant’s failure to warn plaintiff of the danger of the mule’s propensity to kick.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Eon. George G. Eitchcoclc, Judge. (1) The court should have sustained the defend-ant’s demurrer to the evidence at the close of all the evidence, (a) The plaintiff’s second amended petition does not state a cause of action. The right of recovery is predicated upon the theory that the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury was the defendant’s failure to warn plaintiff of the danger of the mule’s propensity to kick. The plaintiff pleads -that he was a teamster and driver by vocation; he needed no warning; he was presumed to know and appreciate what…
1Opinion of the CourtCaulfield, J.
(after stating the facts).—I. Defendant complains of the instruction given by the trial court on the measure of damages. It contends that said instruction is erroneous because it allows recovery for past loss of earnings beyond the amount specified in the petition. This criticism is based upon the fact that in his petition the plaintiff in stating his damages alleged that as a result of his injury he had suffered loss of wages in the sum of fifteen dollars per week since the date of his injury, while the instruction ^permitted the jury to compensate him for any; loss of wages which they might…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Smoot v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Radtke v. St. Louis Basket & Box Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Heinz v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Lindsay v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- McGarry v. New York & H. R.The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lake Superior Loader Co. v. Huttig Lead & Zinc Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Boatman v. MilesWyoming Supreme Court · 1921
- Warner v. Oriel Glass CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Robertson v. RobertsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Jackson Hill Coal Co. v. Van HentenryckIndiana Court of Appeals · 1918
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.