Gutridge v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. D. A. DeArmond, Judge. (1) Defendant’s demurrer to the plaim tiff ’s evidence, and its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the whole case, should have been given. First.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. D. A. DeArmond, Judge. (1) Defendant’s demurrer to the plaim tiff ’s evidence, and its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the whole case, should have been given. First. The doctrine that an employe cannot recover for an injury occasioned by a latent defect, unless the defendant knew it, or could have discovered it by the exercise of reasonable care, is so firmly and familiarly established in this state that a citation of authorities is scarcely justifiable. But see Corey v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 635 ; Flliott v. Railroad, 67 Mo. 272; Murphy n.…
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
This cause was reversed on a former appeal because of error in the admission of evidence. 94 Mo. 468. The same questions that were determined on the former appeal are presented to ns for decision now. In the opinion of Judge Black in this case, when it was here before, the facts are sufficiently stated, so that we do not deem it necessary to repeat them now. *525Defendant contends, it is true, that the evidence is materially different now from what it was then, but upon examination we do not find this contention well founded.
Although the question was decided on the former appeal, it has been…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gutridge v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
3Cited by26 opinions
- O'Mellia v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Scheurer v. Banner Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Nicholds v. Crystal Plate Glass Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Wood v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- State ex rel. Robertson v. HopeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.