Dunn v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting “reasonably safe methods of work” “defined the issue in accordance with the basic premise of MAI in submitting only ultimate issues and avoiding evidentiary detail in instructions”
• rejecting the railroad’s argument that a negligence verdict director charging that the railroad “failed to provide reasonably safe methods of work” was a roving commission; the instruction submitted only the ultimate issue and avoided evidentiary detail
• “The complaining party cannot be prejudiced by the allegedly inadmissible evidence if ... the challenged evidence is merely cumulative to other admitted evidence of like tenor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).