Norton ex rel. Norton v. East St. Louis Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.— Hon. J. Hugo Grimm, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to give the peremptory instruction asked by appellant at the close of all the evidence: (a) Because there was no evidence of any negligence on the part of the appellant, (b) Because the testimony shows that the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Hamm v. United Railways Co., 184 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.— Hon. J. Hugo Grimm, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to give the peremptory instruction asked by appellant at the close of all the evidence: (a) Because there was no evidence of any negligence on the part of the appellant, (b) Because the testimony shows that the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Hamm v. United Railways Co., 184 Mo. App. 5; Cole v. Metropolitan Street Railway, 121 Mo. App. 610 ; Kelsay v. Railway Co., 129 Mo. 362, 372 • Mockowiek v.__ Kansas City Ry., 196 Mo. 550; Schaub v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBecker, J.
This is an action for damages on account of personal injuries sustained by reason of a collision between the plaintiff while riding a motorcycle, and one of the defendant’s street cars. The collision occurred at the intersection of Seventh street and Illinois avenue in the city of East St. Louis, Illinois. The case was heard in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the sum of $450. Defendant in due course brings this appeal.
Plaintiff’s amended petition was based upon an alleged ordinance of the city of East St. Louis…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Blackman v. BotschMissouri Court of Appeals · 1955
- Shuff v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926
- Winn Bros. & Baker, Inc. v. LipscombSupreme Court of Virginia · 1920