Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/99-s-w-58-619361602
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 11:57:07+00:00

Document:
99 S.W. 58 (Mo.App. 1907), Campbell v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Attorney: Boyle & Priest, George W. Easley and Edward T. Miller for appellant. Guy A. Thompson and A. R. Taylor for respondent.
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Walter B. Douglas, Judge.
Boyle & Priest, George W. Easley and Edward T. Miller for appellant.
(1) The court erred in giving plaintiff's instruction numbered 1. Smith v. Hardesty, 31 Mo. 411; Holwerson v. Railway, 157 Mo. 216 and cases therein cited; Oates v. Railway, 168 Mo. 535; Guyer v. Railroad, 174 Mo. 344; Moore v. Railway, 176 Mo. 528; Railroad v. Railroad, 78 Mo.App. 253. (2) The court erred in giving plaintiff's instruction numbered 2. Authorities above cited under point 1. Kries v. Railroad, 148 Mo. 321. (3) The court erred in giving plaintiff's instruction numbered 3. Fisher v. Lead Co., 156 Mo. 479. (4) The court erred in refusing defendant's requested in struction B. Grocer Co. v. Railway, 89 Mo.App. 534; Cogan v. Railway, 101 Mo.App. 179.
Guy A. Thompson and A. R. Taylor for respondent.
(1) A mere omission in an instruction given for one party is harmless if the element omitted is contained in an instruction given for the other party. Edwards v. Railroad Co., 94 Mo.App. 36; Anderson v. Railroad Co., 161 Mo. 411; Perrette v. Kansas City, 162 Mo. 238. (2) As to the objection to plaintiff's instruction numbered 3, it is urged that the court erred in giving this instruction because it was a mere abstract statement of the law. (3) And the instruction is a correct statement of the law, and is definitive of nothing more than the ordinary care required of a motorman of this car. Sluder v. Transit Co., 88 S.W. 643; Kolb v. Transit Co., 102 Mo.App. 143; Gebhart v. Transit Co, 97 Mo.App. 373.
[121 Mo.App. 408] BLAND, P. J.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.