Tina Louise Smith, Respondent, v. City of Hannibal, Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownED92464
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.
Syllabus
]ntbefflt~~ourt~ourtof~ppeal~ ~a~tern1Bt~trtrt NORTHENDIVISION TINALOUISESMITH, No.ED92464 Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AppealfromtheCircuitCourt ofMarionCounty Respondent, vs. CITYOFHANNIBAL,HonorableRobertM.Clayton
TheCircuitCourtofMarionCounty("trialcourt")enteredjudgmentona jury verdictinfavorofTinaLouiseSmith("Plaintiff'),whereinthejuryassessed70%faultto theCityofHannibal("City")and30%faulttoPlaintiff.TheCityappealsfromthetrial court'sordergrantingPlaintiffsmotionfora newtrial.Weaffirm.1 I.BACKGROUND ThisappealarisesoutofPlaintiffspersonalinjuryactionagainsttheCity.2 Plaintiffspetitionallegedthatshewasdrivingherautomobileonthelefthandsideof Highway61'snorthboundlaneinHannibalwhenOfficerChadGraham("Officer Graham"),actingwithinthecourseandscopeofhisemployment,negligentlycausedhis I Plaintiffsmotionfordamagesforfrivolousappealisdenied. 2PlaintiffinitiallynamedboththeCityandOfficerChadA.Grahamasdefendants,butshelaterdismissed OfficerGrahamfromthesuitwithoutprejudice.
vehicletocollidewithhers.Plaintiffallegedthatshewasinjuredandhervehicle damagedasa resultofOfficerGraham'snegligence. TheCitydeniedallallegationsofnegligenceandraisedtheaffirmativedefenseof comparativefault.AccordingtotheCity,Plaintiffsownnegligencecontributedtoher injuriesin thatshefailedtokeepa carefullookout,failedtoswerve,failedtosoundher horn,failedtostop,andfailedtoyieldtotherightofway. Thecasewastriedtoajury.Insupportofitscomparativefaulttheory,theCity adducedevidencethatPlaintiffhadtakenhereyesoffOfficerGraham'svehiclepriorto thepointofimpactandthereforefailedtokeepa carefullookout.3TheCitysubmitteda juryinstruction("InstructionSix")whichstated: Inyourverdict,youmustassessa percentageoffaultto Plaintiff,whetherornot[theCity]waspartlyat fault,if youbelieve: First,Plaintifffailedto keepa carefullookout;and Second,Plaintiffwastherebynegligent;and Third,suchnegligencecausedorcontributedtocauseany damagePlaintiffmayhavesustained. Thejuryreturneda verdictin Plaintiffsfavorandawardedher$15,000in total damages.ConcerningInstructionSix,thejuryassessed70%offaulttotheCityand30% offaulttoPlaintiff.ThetrialcourtaccordinglyoffsetPlaintiffsawardbasedonher comparativefault,andenteredjudgmentforPlaintifffor$10,500. 3Thepartyseekinga "failuretokeepa lookout"instructionhastheburdenofshowingthattheotherparty couldhavereactedintimetoavoidtheaccidenthadheorshebeenkeepinga carefullookout.Spannex reI.Spannv. Jackson,84S.W.3d478,481(Mo.App.E.D.2002).Thepartymustalsoprovidesubstantial evidencethattheonewhofailedtokeepa carefullookoutcouldhaveavoidedtheaccident.Id.Given theserequirements,theCitysoughttointroduceevidencethatPlaintiffdidnotkeepa carefullookoutand couldhaveavoidedtheaccidenthadshebeenpayingcloseattention. 2
Plaintifffileda motionfora newtrialonOctober21,2008andadvancedseveral groundsinsupportthereof.First,Plaintiffassertedthatthetrialcourterredingiving InstructionSixtothejurybecausetherewasnosubstantialevidencetosupportits submission.4Plaintiffthenaskedfora newtrialbecausetheverdictwas"againstthe evidence,""againstthegreaterweightofthecredibleevidencein thiscase,"and"against thelawundertheevidencein thiscase." Thetrialcourthelda hearingonPlaintiffsmotionfora newtrialonDecember5, 2008.Atthehearing,Plaintiffscounselstatedthat"thesoleallegationoferroris that therewasnotevidentiarysupportforthecomparativefaultsubmissionforfailuretokeep a lookout."Thus,theargumentsat thehearingaddressedonlythatissue.Atthe conclusionofthehearing,thetrialjudgeindicatedthattheparties"aregoingtogetback tomeonsomeissues." ThetrialcourtsubsequentlygrantedPlaintiffsmotionfora newtrialonJanuary 9,2009.Initsreasonstherefore,thetrialcourtstated: 1.Theverdictis againsttheweightoftheevidence. 2.The[City]failedto producesubstantialevidence tosupportthesubmissionofcomparativefault inInstructionNumber6 fortheallegedfailure tokeepa carefullookout. TheCityappeals. II.DISCUSSION Wereviewa trialcourt'sdecisiontogranta newtrialforanabuseofdiscretion, and"alloweveryreasonableinferencethatfavorsthetrialcourt'sruling."Thurmanv.St. 4Specifically,Plaintiffsmotionallegedthattherewasnosubstantialevidenceonwhichtosubmitthe instructionbecause:(1)therewasnoevidencethatPlaintifffailedtoseeOfficerGraham'scar;(2)Plaintiff testifiedthatshekepta closelookoutthroughouttheincident;and(3)therewasnoevidencethatthefailure tokeepa lookoutcausedthecollision,norwasthereevidencethatPlaintiffcouldhaveavoidedthe collisionif shehadseenOfficerGraham'scarapproaching. 3
AndrewsMgmt.Servs..Inc.,268S.W.3d434,440(Mo.App.E.D.2008)(quoting Lowdermilkv. VescovoBldg.& RealtyCo..Inc.,91S.W.3d617,625(Mo.App.E.D. 2002)).Anabuseofdiscretionoccurswhenthetrialcourt'srulingis "clearlyagainstthe logicofthecircumstancesthenbeforethecourtandis soarbitraryandunreasonableasto shockthesenseof justiceandindicatea lackofcarefulconsideration."Thurman,268 S.W.3dat 440.Appellatecourtsaremoreliberalin upholdingthegrantofnewtrialthan thedenialofone.Id.at 441. Initstwopointsonappeal,theCityarguesthatthetrialcourterredingranting Plaintiffsmotionfora newtrial.Thetrialcourtadvancedtwoseparategroundsin supportofitsorder,andtheCitychallengesboth.If anygroundadvancedinsupportofa newtrialis correct,wewillaffirmthetrialcourt'sorder.O'Nealv. Agee,8 S.W.3d238, 241(Mo.App.E.D.1999)(citingBastv.St.LouisFreightliner.Inc.,676S.W.2d42,43 (Mo.App.E.D.1984)). Initssecondpoint,theCityarguesthatthetrialcourterredingrantingPlaintiffs motionfora newtrialonthebasisthattheverdictwasagainsttheweightoftheevidence becausePlaintiffdidnotpreservethatallegationoferrorforreview.Wedisagree. "The[trial]courthasnearlyunfettereddiscretionindecidingwhetherornotto granta newtrialonthegroundthattheverdictwasagainsttheweightoftheevidence, '[a]nditsrulinguponthatgroundwillnotbedisturbed,exceptincaseofmanifestabuse.'" Stehnov.SprintSpectrum.L.P.,186S.W.3d247,250(Mo.bane2006)(quoting Robinsonv.Wampler,389S.W.2d757,760(Mo.1965)). 4
MissouriSupremeCourtRule78.07(a)providesthat,injury-triedcases, "allegationsoferrormustbeincludedina motionfora newtrialinordertobepreserved forappellatereview." AccordingtotheCity,Plaintifffailedto preservethisissueforreviewbecause,at thehearingonhermotionfora newtrial,Plaintiffscounselarguedas"thesoleallegation oferror"thattherewasnotevidentiarysupportforInstructionSix.TheCityclaimsthat onlylater,ina proposedOrdertothecourt,didPlaintiffarguethattheverdictwasalso againsttheweightoftheevidence.TheCityanalogizesPlaintiffsconducttoinstances wherea plaintiffadvancesonlyoneallegationoferrorin hismotionfora newtrialand laterattemptspresenta new,additionalallegationtotheappellatecourt. TheCity'sargumentfailstoacknowledge,however,thatPlaintifffileda motion fora newtrialonOctober21,2008,approximatelysixweeksbeforethetrialcourthelda hearingonthemotion.Plaintiffsmotionallegedthatthetrialcourtshouldgranthera newtrialbecausethejury'sverdictwas"againsttheevidence,""againstthegreater weightofthecredibleevidencein thiscase,"and"againstthelawundertheevidencein thiscase."TheCitycitesnoauthoritytosupportitsargumentthatPlaintifffailsto preservethispointforreviewif shedoesnotargueitsmeritsat thehearingonthemotion fora newtrial.Rather,theRuleplainlystatesthatPlaintiffmustincludeherallegationof errorin themotionfora newtrialin ordertopreserveit forreview.SeeRule78.07(a). Plaintiffcompliedwiththisrequirement.TheCity'sbrief,somewhatduplicitously,does notevenmentionPlaintiffsinitialmotionfora newtrialthatshefiledinOctober2008, whereinsheallegedthattheverdictwasagainsttheweightoftheevidence. 5
Wehavereviewedtherecordin thiscaseanddonotbelievethetrialcourtabused itsnearly"unfettereddiscretion"indecidingtograntPlaintiffsmotionfora newtrialon thisground.Stehno,186S.W.3dat 250. Plaintiffproperlypreservedthisissueforreview,andthetrialcourtdidnotabuse itsdiscretioningrantinghermotiononthegroundsthattheverdictwasagainstthe weightoftheevidence.Pointtwois denied.Giventhisfinding,weneednotreviewthe City'sfirstpoint.O'Neal,8 S.W.3dat 241. III.CONCLUSION Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtis affirmed. ~!i2~ KennethM.Romines,C.J.,dissentsinseparateopinion GlennA.Norton,J.,concursinresult 6
3!ntbejOOissouriqcourtof~ppeaIs <!Eastern11Bistrirt NORTHERNDIVISION TINALOUISESMITH, No.ED92464 Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AppealfromtheCircuitCourt ofMarionCounty CauseNo.08MR-CV00438 Respondent, vs. CITYOFHANNIBAL,HonorableRobertM.Clayton
DISSENT
I dissent.Thisis anickelanddimefenderbender- softtissuecase.I believeit deservesthesameclosescrutinyasdoesa Deathcase. Themajorityrelieson"againsttheweightoftheevidence".I donotknowwhat thatmeansonthisrecord.I donotbelieveanyJudgehas..."almostunfettered"discretion - nomoresothatanyregulatorybody,oranyStateofficial.I findthisunprincipled.My readingoftherecordfindsnoexplanationfromcounsel,thetrialjudge -norindeedfrom themajority-astowhatwasagainsttheweightoftheevidence."Againsttheweightof theevidence"is a baldconclusion.UndertheAdminislativeProcedureAct,orthe WorkersCompensationstatueswewouldfindsucha conclusion,unsubstantiated,as arbitrary,capricious,andunconstitutional.I believethatis sohere.I woulddenythepoint.
Thatleavesthelegalissueastowhethertherewassubstantialevidencefor defendantCitytogiveaninstructionforfailuretokeepa look-out.(MAI-37.02,17.05,and 17.08).Thatthisis theonlyissuein thecaseis madeclearbyCounselforMs.Smith. Threetimesat themotionfornewtrialcounselsaid..."Thesoleallegationoferroris that therewasnotevidentiarysupportforthecomparativefaultsubmissionforfailuretokeepa look-out"...I takecounselat hisword. Myreviewshowsforty-sixpagesoftranscript -froma transcriptofthreehundred andfifty-threepages- devotedtodirecttestimonyastotheconditions,distances,speed, reactiontimes,andthesundryby - playofcounselthatmadea trial.Simply,therewas substantialevidencetogivethelook-outinstruction.Thelook-outinstruction,simple thoughit is,is botha swordanda shield.Tohavegranteda MotionforNewTrialonthis recordwasanabuseofdiscretion. I wouldreverseandremandforentryoftheJudgmentwhichtheJuryreached. r ~ nnethM.Romines,ChiefJudge 2
Related Opinions
AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096
Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091
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.
Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020
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.
K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943
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.
Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389