O'Farrell v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

O'Farrell v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

138 S.W. 693, 157 Mo. App. 618, 1911 Mo. App. LEXIS 436

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 S.W. 693 (O'Farrell v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O'Farrell v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 138 S.W. 693, 157 Mo. App. 618, 1911 Mo. App. LEXIS 436 (Mo. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

— Plaintiff's action is for personal injury by being caught between passing street cars in Argentine, Kansas. He recovered judgment in the trial court.

The case as tried concedes that plaintiff was negligent, and reliance was placed by him in the humanitarian rule. It was before us on a former occasion on plaintiff’s appeal. He had secured a verdict but the court set it aside and granted a new trial. We affirmed the order, and the case will be found reported in 136 Mo. App. 353, to which we refer for a statement of the facts. On the trial from the result of which this appeal was taken, evidence lacking in the first trial was supplied and the trial court sustained plaintiff’s verdict.

There is complaint made of instructions refused and modified for defendant, principally as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff. We think the action taken by the court was proper. As stated above, the case was based, practically, on a concession of plaintiff’s negligence. We have not discovered any error and affirm the judgment.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ELLISON, J.

— Plaintiff's action is for personal injury by being caught between passing street cars in Argentine, Kansas. He recovered judgment in the trial court.

The case as tried concedes that plaintiff was negligent, and reliance was placed by him in the humanitarian rule. It was before us on a former occasion on plaintiff’s appeal. He had secured a verdict but the court set it aside and granted a new trial. We affirmed the order, and the case will be found reported in 136 Mo. App. 353, to which we refer for a statement of the facts. On the trial from the result of which this appeal was taken, evidence lacking in the first trial was supplied and the trial court sustained plaintiff’s verdict.

There is complaint made of instructions refused and modified for defendant, principally as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff. We think the action taken by the court was proper. As stated above, the case was based, practically, on a concession of plaintiff’s negligence. We have not discovered any error and affirm the judgment.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.W. 693, 157 Mo. App. 618, 1911 Mo. App. LEXIS 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ofarrell-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-moctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack