Legal Opinion

Liebman v. Colonial Baking Company

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 18, 1965No. 31785PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

L. F. COTTEY, Special Judge.

We have before us a claim for workmen’s compensation which has been denied by the Industrial Commission on the theory that the accident is governed by the “assault doctrine,” but which the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis has allowed, on appeal, by applying the “street hazard doctrine.” To resolve that conflict it will be necessary to examine both of the doctrines that contributed to it, and, as occasion demands, to explain the purpose and define the proper elements of each. The facts are deceptively simple, but the subject they introduce has not infrequently…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Claim of Katz v. A. Kadans & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
  2. Beem v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  3. Foster v. Aines Farm Dairy Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1953
  4. Toole v. Bechtel CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
  5. Hughes v. NeelySupreme Court of Missouri · 1960

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Person v. Scullin Steel CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1975
  2. Kunce v. Junge Baking CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1968
  3. Cooperative Home Care, Inc. v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 2017
  4. Blatter v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of AgingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Kammeyer v. Board of EducationMissouri Court of Appeals · 1965

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API