Apperson v. Bi-State Development Agency, BI-STATE
| Decision Date | 29 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | BI-STATE,No. 48354,48354 |
| Citation | 685 S.W.2d 594 |
| Parties | Louise APPERSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas C. DeVoto, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Charles H. Billings, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is an appeal from a cause of action seeking damages for injuries sustained as a result of a collision between a vehicle being operated by plaintiff-respondent and a vehicle being operated on behalf of defendant-appellant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $10,500. We affirm.
This case arises out of a collision between a bus being operated by Vincent Powell on behalf of defendant, Bi-State Development Agency, and a car being operated by plaintiff, Louise Apperson. The collision occurred at or near the entrance to a Majic Market on the corner of Pelham and Broadway in the City of St. Louis.
Plaintiff had pulled into the parking lot of the Majic Market off Pelham so that her passenger could go into the store. The lot was full so plaintiff had to park at an angle extending over the sidewalk. The vehicle was running but was not in gear.
Bi-State's first point on appeal alleges trial court error in failing to sustain their motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case, failing to sustain their motion for a judgment not withstanding the verdict and failing to sustain their motion for a new trial. Specifically, Bi-State argues that plaintiff's evidence is based upon an impossible fact scenario and is unsupported by any credible evidence.
In resolving this issue we review the evidence in light most favorable to the plaintiff, with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and disregard the defendant's evidence unless it aids the plaintiff's case. Lewis v. Envirotech Corp., 674 S.W.2d 105 (Mo.App.1984). In the case at bar, plaintiff testified she parked at an angle in the parking lot extending over the sidewalk. Other witnesses testified similarly. While no witness observed the accident, plaintiff's witnesses testified to seeing the front end of the bus behind the vehicle immediately after the impact. Additionally, there was testimony of an admission by the bus driver.
Bi-State argues that the physical evidence is such that the accident could not have happened as the witnesses testified, and as such, the "physical facts" rule applies. In support of this argument, Bi-State presented demonstrative evidence. However, Bi-State's evidence does not disprove plaintiff's theory. The demonstrative evidence only proved a possible alternative for the accident. Further, the jury evaluated the evidence of both parties. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stellwagen v. Gates
...Auth., 673 S.W.2d 55 (Mo.App.1984); Terry v. Houk, 639 S.W.2d 897 (Mo.App.1982). Plaintiff adds to that list Apperson v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 685 S.W.2d 594 (Mo.App.1985). See also Montana v. Nenert, 226 S.W.2d 394 (Mo.App.1950). If a single principle can be gleaned from those cases, which......
-
Guevara v. Friedeman
...Friedeman's version. Plaintiff's "physical facts" argument is misdirected and, thus, misses the mark. See, Apperson v. Bi-State Development Agency, 685 S.W.2d 594, 596 (Mo.App.1985). Judgment CRIST and KELLY, JJ., concur. 1 The record before us does not contain a copy of plaintiff's verdict......
-
Floyd v. Shaw, 61128
...to have had a day in court. The interest of an attorney with regard to a fee claim is not of this character. See Apperson v. Bi-State Dev. Agency, 685 S.W.2d 594 (Mo.App.1956). Section 537.095(4) allows the trial court "[t]o deduct and pay the expenses of recovery and collection of the judg......