Peterson v. United Railways Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. George G. Hitchcock, Judge. (1) Plaintiff’s instruction number 1 is erroneous, because it permitted a recovery by plaintiff if tbe jury found that tbe conductor failed to keep a vigilant watch, as required by the so-called “Vigilant Watch Ordinance” of St. Louis, when, under the law, a recovery could be had only in the event the motorman failed to keep such lookout. Uebhardt v. Transit Co., 97 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. George G. Hitchcock, Judge. (1) Plaintiff’s instruction number 1 is erroneous, because it permitted a recovery by plaintiff if tbe jury found that tbe conductor failed to keep a vigilant watch, as required by the so-called “Vigilant Watch Ordinance” of St. Louis, when, under the law, a recovery could be had only in the event the motorman failed to keep such lookout. Uebhardt v. Transit Co., 97 Mo. App. 373; Heinzle v. Railroad, 182 Mo. 528. (2) Plaintiff’s instruction number 1, which authorized the jury to find for plaintiff if they found that…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
— This case reaches us from the . St. •Louis Court of Appeals upon due certification to the effect that the majority opinion therein conflicts- with the cases of this court, and other appellate decisions. The case is therefore here for full review. The petition is thus summarized in the abstract of record:
“Plaintiff’s petition alleged, in substance, that defendant is and was on May 15, 1910, a' corporation engaged in the business of operating a street railway system in the city of St. Louis; that on said date plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile which became stalled on defendant’s…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mockowik v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Holwerson v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Murray v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Young v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Hutchinson v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
3Cited by18 opinions
- Dempsey v. HortonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- Wolfe v. HarmsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1967
- Consumer Contact Co. v. State Department of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 1980
- Pentecost v. St. Louis Merchants Bridge Terminal RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Messing v. Judge & Dolph Drug Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1929
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.