10 Mo.App. 235 (Mo.App. 1881), Batterson v. Vogel
|Citation:||10 Mo.App. 235|
|Opinion Judge:||BAKEWELL, J.|
|Party Name:||HENRY A. BATTERSON, Appellant, v. JOHN C. VOGEL, EXECUTOR, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||ALLEN & CASTE, with whom is L. B. VALLIANT, for the appellant: W. H. H. RUSSELL and BROADHEAD, SLAYBACK & HAEUSSLER, for the respondent:|
|Judge Panel:||Judge THOMPSON concurs; Judge LEWIS did not sit.|
|Case Date:||April 12, 1881|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Missouri|
1. An inn-keeper is liable for a loss of his guest's goods not occasioned bye the latter's negligence, the act of God, or the public enemy.
2. That a guest is provided with facilities for fastening his door which he does not use, is not proof of negligence which will discharge the inn-keeper from liability for loss of the guest's property.
3. That the guest has means furnished him for securing himself which he fails to use, is a fact which, with other circumstances of the case, should be left to the jury.
4. The question in such a case is, whether the loss would have occurred if the plaintiff had used the ordinary care which a prudent man might reasonably be expected to take.
5. Unless good ground for it appears, an instruction that if the jury believe that a witness has knowingly sworn falsely as to any material fact they may disregard his entire testimony, should not be given.
6. When a cause has been reversed because of the admission of certain testimony, the error in admitting the same testimony again is not necessarily cured by withdrawing it from the jury by an instruction.
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, BOYLE, J
Reversed and remanded.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP