Legal Opinion

Bolger v. Kansas City Material Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 5, 1913Published

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — lion. 0. A. Lucas, Judge. (1) The instruction followed the petition and was not too general. Moore v. Railroad, 136 Mo. App. 214; Buckman v. Railroad, 100 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — lion. 0. A. Lucas, Judge. (1) The instruction followed the petition and was not too general. Moore v. Railroad, 136 Mo. App. 214; Buckman v. Railroad, 100 Mo. App. 34. (2) Defendant cannot be heard to complain that instruction 2 is not specific enough, for two other reasons: First, all of its instructions were specific as to negligence; indeed, excluded all negligence except warning; second, the defect, if any, amounted to nondirection, and even had defendant failed to ash for specific direction, it could not he heard to complain by reason of said failure,…

1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.

Defendant had an extensive rock quarry and had a number of men engaged in and about the premises, among whom was plaintiff’s husband whose service was that of fireman of a stationary engine. On the 6th of October, 1911, he was killed by a rock thrown by a blast which had been set off by direction of those in charge of the blasting. She brought this action for damages and obtained a verdict for five thousand dollars. The trial court sustained defendant’s m'otion for new trial and also the motion in arrest of judgment. Plaintiff thereupon appealed.

The reason given by the trial court for…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McKinney v. NorthcuttMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
  2. Dowell v. GuthrieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
  3. Dowell v. GuthrieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  4. Knight v. Donnelly Bros.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API