Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Citation
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Parent Document
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1921-07-23
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3550984/roman-v-king/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (44)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
- Roman v. King, 233 S.W. 161 (1921)
Full Text
766 chars"It is urged that plaintiff's equal knowledge with defendant of the condition of the steps bars her right to recover herein. We cannot agree with this contention. These steps constituted practically the only means of access to the two apartments, and were used by both tenants, facts necessarily known to the landlord. Because of their inaccessibility and condition the other entrances were seldom used. Mere continued use of a common passageway, after knowledge of its dangerous condition, is not of itself conclusive evidence of a lack of due care on the part of the tenant, since such knowledge does not require the tenant to desist from using same in a careful manner, nor render the careful use of same contributory negligence. [Looney v. McLean,129 Mass. 33.]"