Court Opinion

ID: 3528713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 22:41:09.517461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:31.909551
License: Public Domain

I dissented in Division for the reason that the principal instruction for the plaintiff was of such length that no average jury could carry the thought supposed to be in the instruction. I think that there are substantial errors in this instruction, leaving out of consideration its length. However, its length has been sufficiently condemned by this court, and I go no further. I doubt whether or not there is liability, but this I will not discuss, as the length of this instruction condemns the trialnisi. [Williams v. Ransom, 234 Mo. l.c. 66; Stid v. Railroad,236 Mo. 398; Crowl v. American Linseed Oil Co., 255 Mo. 331; Andrew v. Linebaugh, 260 Mo. 651; Heman v. Hartman, 189 Mo. 20; Sidway v. Live Stock Co., 163 Mo. 376.]
Think of five printed pages for an instruction in an ordinary damage suit! It shocks the experience of both bench and bar. No jury can carry the real thread of such an instruction, if it can be said that it has a thread. For this reason, if not for others, I dissent. David E. Blair, J., concurs in these views. *Page 190