Tina Louise Smith, Respondent, v. City of Hannibal, Appellant.

]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

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