Opinion

Finnegan v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

  • 244 Mo. 608
  • 149 S.W. 612
  • 1912 Mo. LEXIS 336
Court
Supreme Court of Missouri
Filed
Jul 2, 1912
Status
Published
Author
Woodson
On the bench
Beown, Brown, Ferriss, Graves, Holds, Kennish, Lamm, Remanded, Should, Stated, That, Trial, Valliant, Views, Woodson
Cited by
16 cases
Authority
More cited than 4.7%

The opinion

*662 DISSENTING OPINION.

WOODSON, J.

I dissent from the majority opinion in this case, for the reasons stated by Kennish, J., in his dissenting opinion, and I fully concur with the latter opinion.

However, in my opinion, the verdict of the jury , and the judgment of the circuit court are grossly excessive, and clearly indicate to my mind passion and prejudice on the part of the triers of the facts; and since the question of liability or nonliability of the appellant was a vital issue in the case, and not admitted, I think the same passion and prejudice of the jury which caused it to assess excessive damages may have and did influence the jury in finding that the appellant was liable on the facts.

Entertaining these- views, I am of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, in order that a fair-minded and impartial jury may pass upon the fact of liability or nonliability of the appellant, as well as the amount of damages sustained by the respondent. [Cook v. Globe Printing Company, 227 Mo. 471 , l. c. 562.]

PER CURIAM.

It results from all the opinions filed that this case should be reversed and remanded, and it is so ordered. «

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.