Russell A. Magee and Constance L. Magee, Appellants, v. Carla A. Brown and Edith M. Brown, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownWD65522
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: Russell A. Magee and Constance L. Magee, Appellants, v. Carla A. Brown and Edith M. Brown, Respondents. Case Number: WD65522 Handdown Date: 12/06/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Marco A. Roldan Counsel for Appellant: Matthew Joseph O'Connor Counsel for Respondent: Philip Cardarella Opinion Summary: The Magees appeal the circuit court's judgment granting Edith Brown's motion to dismiss counts V and VI of the Magees' petition, which alleged that Brown negligently entrusted her automobile to her daughter, who crashed into the Magees' automobile. DISMISSED. Division holds: An order adjudicating "fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties." Rule 74.01(b). The rule authorizes the circuit court to designate as final a judgment "as to one or more claims but fewer than all of the claims," but, in the absence of an express determination, an order is not final if it does not resolve all claims. Committee for Educational Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 453 (Mo. banc 1994). The circuit court did not make a designation under Rule 74.01, and its order did not dispose of all claims against Brown, claiming loss of consortium, remains pending. Because the circuit court's order is not final, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Section 512.020, RSMo. Citation: Opinion Author: Paul M. Spinden, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Howard and Holliger, JJ., concur. Opinion:
Russell and Constance Magee sued Carla Brown and her mother, Edith Brown, after Carla Brown crashed her mother's car into the Magees' van and trailer, which were parked on the shoulder of Interstate 435 in Kansas City. Russell Magee had parked his vehicle on the shoulder to secure a load in the trailer. The car driven by Brown careened across several lanes, hitting Russell Magee and crashing into the Magees' van. Russell Magee was seriously injured. The Magees sued Brown and her mother in an eight-count petition. Counts V and VI charged Edith Brown with negligently entrusting her automobile to her daughter, and Count VIII alleged that Edith Brown was liable for Constance Magee's loss of consortium. Because the Magees do not appeal from a final judgment, we dismiss their appeal. This appeal was prompted by the circuit court's granting Edith Brown's motion to dismiss her from the petition on the ground that it did not state a claim against her for negligent entrustment. The circuit court granted the motion by dismissing Counts V and VI pertaining to negligent entrustment. The Magees filed this appeal. The appeal was premature. An order adjudicating "fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties." Rule 74.01(b). The rule authorizes the circuit court to designate as final a judgment "as to one or more claims but fewer than all of the claims," but, in the absence of an express determination, an order is not final if it does not resolve all claims. Committee for Educational Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 453 (Mo. banc 1994). The circuit court did not make an express determination under Rule 74.01. Moreover, by dismissing only Counts V and VI, the circuit court's order did not dispose of all of the claims against Edith Brown. Count VIII appears to remain pending against her. Because the order did not dispose of all claims or any parties, and because the circuit court did not designate its order as final under Rule 74.01(b), the order is not final. We have no jurisdiction to consider the Magees' appeal and dismiss it pursuant to Section 512.020. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450