Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Citation
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Parent Document
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1990-10-23
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
Full Text
641 charsThe Harrisons filed the present action against the Robertses in an effort to recover for the injuries sustained by Mr. Harrison and for a loss of' consortium sustained by Mrs. Harrison. The theory of negligence submitted to the jury was that the Robertses, as landlords, had retained control of the premises and they were liable for failing to keep the stairs, porch, and guardrail in a reasonably safe condition. Appellants contend that actions by the Rob-ertses, such as retention of keys, inspection of the premises, promises to make repairs and actually making repairs on the premises, indicate a retention of control by the respondents.