Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Citation
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Parent Document
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2018-03-06
Other Sections in This Document (30)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Labarbera v. Malec, 540 S.W.3d 903 (2018)
- Section 441
Full Text
689 charsPlaintiff contends that her case is similar to Harrison v. Roberts , 800 S.W.2d 40 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990). In Harrison , plaintiffs, husband and wife, entered into a written rental agreement to lease defendants' home. Husband was injured when the guardrail on the porch collapsed and he fell to the ground below. Plaintiffs sued for negligence, arguing that defendants retained control of the premises and were therefore liable. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs, but the trial court granted defendants' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding plaintiffs failed to present evidence that defendants owed a duty of care to plaintiffs.