Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Abraham Zarenchansky, et al., Appellant, v. Larry Bugh, Respondent

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Respondent
Larry Bugh

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Case Style: Abraham Zarenchansky, et al., Appellant, v. Larry Bugh, Respondent Case Number: 53909 Handdown Date: 03/24/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Boone County, Hon. Eugene C. Hamilton Counsel for Appellant: Mark Pfeiffer Counsel for Respondent: David A. Oliver Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Ulrich, C.J., P.J., Hanna and Ellis, JJ. Opinion: O R D E R Abraham Zarenchansky, his wife, Joyce, and their daughter, Kimberly, were involved in an automobile accident that occurred when Larry Bugh ran a red light and collided with the Zarenchansky's vehicle. After a jury trial, the jury returned verdicts in favor of the Zarenchanskys: Abraham was awarded $500.00, Joyce was awarded $1.00 and Kimberly was awarded $115.00. The Zarenchanskys appeal, claiming that the trial court erred by refusing to admit exhibits 8, 9 and 10 into evidence. These exhibits were cash receipts confirming payment of the Abraham's and Joyce's medical bills from March 1992 through January 1993. They further contend that the trial court erred in instructing the jury to disregard any testimony or evidence concerning medical expenses that they incurred while in Argentina. The Zarenchanskys claim the trial court erred in giving these withdrawal instructions because the instructions unduly prejudiced their entire case in chief. Discerning no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.

Injured in a similar issue?

Call now or send the claim details with this opinion context preserved.

Read The Personal Injury GuideGuide
Civil Litigationmajority2,703 words
Read opinion
remanded

The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.

per_curiam4,488 words
Read opinion

Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.

Injured in a similar issue?

Call now or send the claim details with this opinion context preserved.

Read The Car Accidents GuideGuide
Personal InjuryWrongful Deathper_curiam3,654 words
Read opinion