Welch v. Dieter & Wenzel
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Non. Hugh Dabbs, Judge. (1) Under the evidence plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Fugler v. Bothe, 117 M'o. 493; Steinhauser v. Spraul, 127 Mo. 541; Blundell v. Miller & Co., 189 Mo. 552;' Mathis v. Stock Yards Co., 185 Mo. 434; Cristy v. Railway, 131 Mo. App. 266, 110 S. W. 694. (2) If defendants are liable here, then the master is an insurer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Non. Hugh Dabbs, Judge. (1) Under the evidence plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Fugler v. Bothe, 117 M'o. 493; Steinhauser v. Spraul, 127 Mo. 541; Blundell v. Miller & Co., 189 Mo. 552;' Mathis v. Stock Yards Co., 185 Mo. 434; Cristy v. Railway, 131 Mo. App. 266, 110 S. W. 694. (2) If defendants are liable here, then the master is an insurer. Plaintiff was an experienced man, the situation and all attendant dangers were open and apparent to and understood by plaintiff. (1) If defendant was negligent in failing to furnish plaintiff with a scaffold on…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
Action by a servant against his master to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the master. At the conclusion of the evidence offered by plaintiff, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for defendants and plaintiff took a nonsuit, with leave to move to set the same aside. Afterward, the court sustained the motion filed by plaintiff to set aside the non-suit and to grant him a new trial. Defendants appealed.
The sole question presented for our determination is whether or not the evidence of plaintiff entitled him to go to the jury.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Blundell v. Wm. A. Miller Elevator Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Fugler v. BotheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Steinhauser v. SpraulSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Mathis v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Cristy v. Southwest Missouri RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Medlin Milling Co. v. MimsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1914