Gessley v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
ERROR to }Iowara Circuit Court, HON. €f. IT. BUROK.. HARTT, Judge. The oase is suffioiently stated~ in the opinion. I. Plaintiff in error maintains that the petition `n~owhere shows the parties in charge of the engine, or any other agents or servants of defendant, knew, or could, by ordinary care and diligence, have known, plaintiff was in the car at the time the engine backed against and moved it, and there is no act charged against the persons who ran the engine on the…
Read the full summary
ERROR to }Iowara Circuit Court, HON. €f. IT. BUROK.. HARTT, Judge. The oase is suffioiently stated~ in the opinion. I. Plaintiff in error maintains that the petition `n~owhere shows the parties in charge of the engine, or any other agents or servants of defendant, knew, or could, by ordinary care and diligence, have known, plaintiff was in the car at the time the engine backed against and moved it, and there is no act charged against the persons who ran the engine on the side track that shows it was run in any other than the ordinary way of backing on to the side track. Pier et al. v.…
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
This was an action for personal injuries.
The court gave two instructions for plaintiff. The first instruction was as follows :
“1. The jury are instructed that, if they believe, from the evidence, that the defendant, through the negligence or carelessness of its agents, and without negligence on the part of plaintiff, inflicted upon the plaintiff' the injuries mentioned in the petition, they will find for the plaintiff, and assess his damages at such sum as they may think he is entitled to, not to exceed the sum iff' three thousand dollars, the sum claimed in the petition.”
Instructions should…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Abbott v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Hassett v. RustSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Hinds v. City of MarshallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Butcher v. DeathSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- Cocker v. CockerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
3Cited by8 opinions
- Casey v. Wrought Iron Bridge Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- Phelps v. City of SalisburySupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Bigelow v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Orscheln v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1901
- Ross v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.