Holt v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. George C. Hitchcock, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to give the peremptory instruction asked by appellant at the close of all the testimony — because there was no proof of any facts that establish liability on the part of the appellant. Bair v. TIeibel, 103 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. George C. Hitchcock, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to give the peremptory instruction asked by appellant at the close of all the testimony — because there was no proof of any facts that establish liability on the part of the appellant. Bair v. TIeibel, 103 Mo. App. 621; Czemicke v. Ehrlich, 212 Mo. 386; Smith v. Box Co., 193 Mo. 715; Lohmeyer v. Cordage Co., 113 S. W. 1108. Because the testimony showed that respondent was guilty of negligence as a matter of law. Williams v. Railroad, 165 S. W. Rep. 788 ; Maupin v. Miller, 164 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
— This is a suit for damages on account of personal injury received through the negligence of defendant. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.
Plaintiff lost a finger by means of a ripsaw installed in defendant’s basement and sues under the statute requiring dangerous machinery to be guarded.
It appears plaintiff was a carpenter in defendant’s employ and among other things worked about a ripsaw in the basement. The ripsaw was installed in a table about four feet wide and twelve feet long and propelled by motive, power attached. The table and ripsaw stood in the basement of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Shamp v. LambertMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Dutzi v. GeiselMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Kelley v. Calumet Woolen Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
3Cited by1 opinion
- Higgins v. Terminal Railroad Ass'n of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1936