Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1941–1962 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Price v. Nicholsongreen1 sentence1962Price v. Nicholson, Mo.Sup., 340 S.W.2d 1, 9 [3]; Sheerin v. St. | 1 | 1 |
Faught Ex Rel. Faught v. Washamgreen2 sentences1962Faught v. Washam, 365 Mo. 1021 , 291 S.W.2d 78, 81 [1], [2-3], In this case it was stated: “ * * * ‘It is prejudicial error, in an instruction submitting humanitarian negligence, to inject therein primary negligence of the defendant or contributory negligence of the plaintiff; to require consideration of any antecedent negligence of either plaintiff or defendant which existed prior to the time that the humanitarian doctrine properly commenced to operate; or to predicate recovery upon any different facts than those which actually existed at the time the peril arose and was discovered, or, if th 1962Faught v. Washam, 365 Mo. 1021 , 291 S.W.2d 78, 81 [1], [2-3], In this case it was stated: “ * * * ‘It is prejudicial error, in an instruction submitting humanitarian negligence, to inject therein primary negligence of the defendant or contributory negligence of the plaintiff; to require consideration of any antecedent negligence of either plaintiff or defendant which existed prior to the time that the humanitarian doctrine properly commenced to operate; or to predicate recovery upon any different facts than those which actually existed at the time the peril arose and was discovered, or, if th | 1 | 1 |
Frandeka v. St. Louis Public Service Co.green2 sentences1956Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 245 , 234 S.W.2d 540, 548 [15], and Wright v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 382 , 201 S.W.2d 935, 937-938 [2], It is a statutory duty. § 304.010, R-SMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Anderson v. Prugh, 364 Mo. 557 , 264 S.W.2d 358, 364 . 1956Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 245 , 234 S.W.2d 540, 548 [15], and Wright v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 382 , 201 S.W.2d 935, 937-938 [2], It is a statutory duty. § 304.010, R-SMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Anderson v. Prugh, 364 Mo. 557 , 264 S.W.2d 358, 364 . | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Osborngreen2 sentences1956Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 245 , 234 S.W.2d 540, 548 [15], and Wright v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 382 , 201 S.W.2d 935, 937-938 [2], It is a statutory duty. § 304.010, R-SMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Anderson v. Prugh, 364 Mo. 557 , 264 S.W.2d 358, 364 . 1956Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 245 , 234 S.W.2d 540, 548 [15], and Wright v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 382 , 201 S.W.2d 935, 937-938 [2], It is a statutory duty. § 304.010, R-SMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Anderson v. Prugh, 364 Mo. 557 , 264 S.W.2d 358, 364 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mayfield v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1961Co., 337 Mo. 79 , 85 S.W.2d 116, 1 . c. 123, the rule was reaffirmed that “It is prejudicial error, in an instruction submitting humanitarian negligence, to inject therein primary negligence of the defendant * * * ; to require consideration of any antecedent negligence of * * * defendant which existed prior to the time that the humanitarian doctrine properly commenced to operate; or to predicate recovery upon any different facts than those which actually existed at the time the peril arose and was discovered, or, if there was a duty to keep a lookout, when it was discoverable by the exercise o 1961Co., 337 Mo. 79 , 85 S.W.2d 116, 1 . c. 123, the rule was reaffirmed that “It is prejudicial error, in an instruction submitting humanitarian negligence, to inject therein primary negligence of the defendant * * * ; to require consideration of any antecedent negligence of * * * defendant which existed prior to the time that the humanitarian doctrine properly commenced to operate; or to predicate recovery upon any different facts than those which actually existed at the time the peril arose and was discovered, or, if there was a duty to keep a lookout, when it was discoverable by the exercise o | 3 | 1941–1961 |
Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson v. Prugh
green
2 sentences1956Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 245 , 234 S.W.2d 540, 548 [15], and Wright v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 382 , 201 S.W.2d 935, 937-938 [2], It is a statutory duty. § 304.010, R-SMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Anderson v. Prugh, 364 Mo. 557 , 264 S.W.2d 358, 364 . 1956Louis Public Service Co., 361 Mo. 245 , 234 S.W.2d 540, 548 [15], and Wright v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 382 , 201 S.W.2d 935, 937-938 [2], It is a statutory duty. § 304.010, R-SMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Anderson v. Prugh, 364 Mo. 557 , 264 S.W.2d 358, 364 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Branson v. Abernathy Furniture Co.
green
2 sentences1941We find nothing in any of these cases that would warrant the approval of instructions telling the jury about any duty the law imposed upon the deceased either prior to or after the time that the humanitarian doctrine imposed a duty on the defendant's engineer to act. [5] Instruction 6 placed no duty on defendant's engineer to act until "it was reasonably apparent to said engineer that said driver was oblivious to the peril of passing over said crossing with said automobile *Page 806 and that said driver in the exercise of the highest degree of of care would not reasonably stop said automobile 1941We find nothing in any of these cases that would warrant the approval of instructions telling the jury about any duty the law imposed upon the deceased either prior to or after the time that the humanitarian doctrine imposed a duty on the defendant's engineer to act. [5] Instruction 6 placed no duty on defendant's engineer to act until "it was reasonably apparent to said engineer that said driver was oblivious to the peril of passing over said crossing with said automobile *Page 806 and that said driver in the exercise of the highest degree of of care would not reasonably stop said automobile | 1 | 1941–1941 |