Removich v. Bambrick Bros. Construction Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.- — Hon. George G. Hitchcock, Judge. (1) Tire doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in an action against the master for personal injuries sustained by the servant, where, as in the case at bar, the facts point to an omission of proper care, and the master has superior means of knowing the particular cause. 4 Labatt on Master and Servant (2 Ed.), par. 1601, and cases cited; Klebe v. Distilling Co., 207 Mo. 486, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 140;…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.- — Hon. George G. Hitchcock, Judge. (1) Tire doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in an action against the master for personal injuries sustained by the servant, where, as in the case at bar, the facts point to an omission of proper care, and the master has superior means of knowing the particular cause. 4 Labatt on Master and Servant (2 Ed.), par. 1601, and cases cited; Klebe v. Distilling Co., 207 Mo. 486, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 140; Turner v. ITaar, 114 Mo. 346; Blanton v. Dold, 109 Mo. 74; Johnson v. Railroad, 104 Mo. App. 592; St. Clair v.…
1Opinion of the CourtFarts, P. J.
Action for personal injuries on appeal from the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, which court having sustained a motion to make the be*46.low petition more definite and certain, on plaintiff’s refusal to do so-, sustained defendant’s demurrer thereto. Plaintiff has appealed in due form.
The petition, caption and merely formal parts, allegation of nature and permanency of injuries and prayer for judgment, omitted, is as follows:
“Plaintiff, hy leave of court first obtained, files this, his amended petition, and for cause of action against defendant states that defendant is and was at all…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Losee v. . BuchananNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Chenall v. Palmer Brick Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- McGrath v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Bowen v. Chicago, Burlington & Kansas City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Cosulich v. Standard Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Grindstaff v. J. Goldberg & Sons Structural Steel Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Cruce v. Gulf, Mobile Ohio Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Charlton Ex Rel. Charlton v. LovelaceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- Gordon v. Muehling Packing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Tayer v. York Ice MacHinery Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1938
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.