Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Citation
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Parent Document
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1995-11-14
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
- Winkler v. Robinett, 913 S.W.2d 817 (1995)
Full Text
861 charsThe Winklers, however, did not make a submissible case that Mr. Robinett’s failure to fix the problem with the electrical system was the cause of the fire which destroyed the mobile home. To attribute the fire to that electrical problem and to Mr. Robinett’s failure to correct it, the Winklers would have to prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, that the fire was electrical in origin. Such a showing would have been sufficient under Henderson v. W.C. Haas Rlty. Management, Inc., 561 S.W.2d 382, 386 (Mo.App.1977), where, in a suit against a landlord for a breach of an implied warranty of habitability, this court held that a submissible case was made on the causation of a fire when the jury was given sufficient evidence from which to conclude that the fire was caused by some defect in the electrical wiring.