Pointer v. Mountain Railway Construction Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, Judge. (1) The law holds the defendant to the highest degree of care and applies the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Tenn. State Fair Assn. v. Hartman, 183 S. W. 735; Hartman v. Tenn. State Fair Assn., 183 S. W‘. 733, citing Hollis v. K. C. Assn., 205'Mo. 508; Best Park Co. v. Rollins, 68 So. (Ala.) 417; Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Brez, 39 App. D. C. 58; Lee Line Steamers v. Robinson, 218 Fed. 563; Hughes y.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, Judge. (1) The law holds the defendant to the highest degree of care and applies the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Tenn. State Fair Assn. v. Hartman, 183 S. W. 735; Hartman v. Tenn. State Fair Assn., 183 S. W‘. 733, citing Hollis v. K. C. Assn., 205'Mo. 508; Best Park Co. v. Rollins, 68 So. (Ala.) 417; Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Brez, 39 App. D. C. 58; Lee Line Steamers v. Robinson, 218 Fed. 563; Hughes y. Railroad, L. R. A. 1916A, 927, and note. The maxim res ipsa loquitur applies to many other classes of cases. Setter v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, C. J.
Action for personal injuries. The sum first claimed was .$50,000, but about the conclusion of the trial nisi, a gracious amendment of the petition reduced the sum to $25,000. Plaintiff was a metal polisher in the city of St. Louis, earning, when at work, four dollars per day, the amount to which the union of which he was a member limited the earnings of their members. Country-bred, he had not at the date of the accident been fully initiated in all the amusements of a great city *109although he had lived there for a considerable time. His chum, Arthur Boardman, was of city origin, but not fully…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Sweeney v. ErvingSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Price v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Orcutt v. Century Building Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- McGrath v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Yarnell v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Maki v. Murray HospitalMontana Supreme Court · 1932
- May Department Stores Co. v. BellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Shafer v. Southwestern Bell Telephone CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
- Charlton Ex Rel. Charlton v. LovelaceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- Kapros v. Pierce Oil CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.