Reeves v. Larkin
| Decision Date | 31 October 1853 |
| Citation | 19 Mo. 192 |
| Parties | REEVES, Respondent, v. LARKIN, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A party may recover for damages caused by the negligence of another in performing a duty unless his own negligence contributed to the loss.
2. A variance between the petition and the evidence, as to the manner in which the negligence of the defendant operated to occasion the loss sued for, is not material under the new practice.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
Action to recover the value of a mule alleged to have died from injuries received in hauling a loaded dray across a sewer constructed by the defendants, and negligently covered. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
J. A. Kasson, for appellants.
H. N. Hart, for respondent.
1. The instructions given by the court, on its own motion, require that the jury, before finding for the plaintiff, shall be satisfied that the defenddants so negligently and improperly filled up the sewer made by them across the levee, that by reason thereof the plaintiff's mule was injured, and that the plaintiff was not guilty of any negligence or carelessness in the management of his dray and mule, at the time of the injury. In the instructions given by the court, on its own motion, as well as in the instructions given at the request of the defendants, the rule is placed prominently before the jury, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover if he could have passed the sewer or drain in safety, at the time of the accident, by the exercise of reasonable care and attention in passing it. These instructions seem to place the law of the case as favorably before the jury as the defendants could ask it. They had, for their own convenience and advantage, placed a sewer from the cellar of their building across a public thoroughfare in the city, and having accomplished their object by draining their cellar, they filled up the sewer with stone. They had made the surface even with that of the street, but as it was less compact than the street, it necessarily sunk below the surface of the street, and occasioned difficulty to those passing it with loaded vehicles. If the plaintiff's mule was lost to him by reason of the negligent and careless manner in which this sewer was filled up by the defendants, he is entitled to recover, unless his own negligence has contributed to the loss, and this rule is stated with sufficient clearness by the court.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hibbler v. Kansas City Railways Co.
...immaterial by defendant's failure to file affidavit showing in what respect it had been misled as per Sec. 1272, R. S. 1919. Reeves v. Larkin, 19 Mo. 192; Fischer Max, 49 Mo. 405; More v. King, 178 S.W. 124; Newton v. Harvey, 202 S.W. 249; Lane v. Rys. Co., 228 S.W. 872; Cossitt v. Railway,......
-
Helena Gas Company v. Rogers
...from the city. Wood on Nuisance (2 ed.) § 274. 2. The fourth instruction declares the law. 54 Ark. 131; 50 N.Y. 659; 1 McArthur, 626; 19 Mo. 192. One whose active agency brought about a dangerous condition in a street is bound to take cognizance of his own wrongful or negligent act. 56 Ark.......
-
Current v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.
...is no such here. Metz v. Eddy, 21 Mo. 13; Ely v. Potter, 58 Mo. 158; Erfort v. Consolus, 47 Mo. 208; Carroll v. Pouts, 16 Mo. 226; Reeves v. Larkin, 19 Mo. 192. (3) The plaintiff did all that was required of him; he left the car in the hands of the inspector, and, after lapse of time enough......
-
Walquist v. Kansas City Railways Co.
...desired to rely thereon. IV. On account of the errors heretofore pointed out, the cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial. White and Reeves, CC., PER CURIAM: -- The foregoing opinion of Railey, C., is hereby adopted as the opinion of the court. All of the judges concur; Walker, J., i......