Rutledge v. Swinney
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court. — Hon. H. B. Shain, Judge. (1) The court should have given the peremptory instruction asked hv appellants at the close of the evidence: Because the petition does not state that the cross arm and pins referred to in the - petition were furnished for the purpose of hearing the weight of linemen.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court. — Hon. H. B. Shain, Judge. (1) The court should have given the peremptory instruction asked hv appellants at the close of the evidence: Because the petition does not state that the cross arm and pins referred to in the - petition were furnished for the purpose of hearing the weight of linemen. York v. Bailroad, 117 Mo. 405; Sind-linger v. City of Kansas, 126 Mo. 315; Kelly v. Lawrence, 195 Mo. 75; Boberts v. Telephone‘Co., 166 Mo. 369; Telegraph Co. v. Speicher, 59 N. J. L. 23. (2) Because the testimony showed that the cross arm and pins in question were not…
1Opinion of the Court
JOHNSON, J. —
Plaintiff, tbe servant of defendants, received personal injuries while in the discharge of duties pertaining to his employment and sued to recover the resultant damages on the ground that his injuries were caused by negligence of defendants in failing to exercise reasonable care to furnish him a reasonably safe place in which to work. The answer is a general denial and a plea, of contributory negligence. The cause is here on the appeal of defendants from a judgment for $5000 recovered by plaintiff in the circuit court.
Defendants, as the receivers of the Sedalia Light & Traction…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Roberts v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Miller v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
3Cited by2 opinions
- Shelton v. Kirksville Light, Power & Ice Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Walling v. HauteIndiana Court of Appeals · 1916