Bauby v. Lake

Decision Date29 June 1999
Docket NumberED74820
Citation995 S.W.2d 10
PartiesThis slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Linda L. Bauby, Respondent, v. Steven A. Lake, a minor, and Natalie Aldridge, Appellants. Case Number: 74820 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 0
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Robert D. McAllister

Counsel for Appellant: Irvin Dubinskyl

Counsel for Respondent: Richard A. Abrams

Opinion Summary: Steven A. Lake, a minor, and his mother, Natalie Aldridge ("Defendants"), appeal from a judgment in the amount of $7,000 entered against them and in favor of Linda L. Bauby ("Plaintiff") in Plaintiff's suit against Defendants for property damage to her automobile.

REVERSED.

Division Two holds: Plaintiff failed to make a submissible case against the minor Defendant, and the judgment against him must be reversed, because there was no substantial evidence either that he was involved in the theft of the vehicle or that he in any way caused the accident that resulted in damage to the vehicle. The judgment against his mother, therefore, must also be reversed. The only alleged basis of liability on her part was parental liability under section 537.045.1 RSMo, which cannot be a proper basis for liability in the absence of a valid judgment against the minor.

Opinion Author: Richard B. Teitelman, Judge

Opinion Vote: REVERSED. Dowd, P.J., and Crahan, J., concur.

Opinion:

Steven A. Lake, a minor, and his mother, Natalie Aldridge ("Defendants"), appeal from a judgment in the amount of $7,000 entered against them and in favor of Linda L. Bauby ("Plaintiff") in Plaintiff's suit against Defendants for property damage to her automobile. Defendants contend, inter alia, that there was no substantial evidence to support the judgment against either one of them. We reverse.

FACTS

On January 4, 1996, Plaintiff's 1987 Buick was stolen from the parking lot outside her place of employment. On February 2, 1996, the police received a call concerning an automobile, later identified as Plaintiff's stolen vehicle, that had crashed into a tree. While investigating this accident the police got a call from Middle School Principal Charles Bluette, who reported that he had Steven A. Lake, age 14, in his custody. Bluette told police he had observed the vehicle driving erratically on school property and then, after observing Lake get out of the car, had ordered the driver to leave the school property. The driver complied, and almost immediately thereafter ran into a tree in the front yard of a house just two houses west of the school. The driver then got out of the car and ran away. Bluette gave a description of the driver to the police, and Lake identified him as an older teenager that he knew from Kinloch.

Sometime after this incident Plaintiff sued Lake and his mother, Natalie Aldridge, in a "Petition For Property Damage Over $5000." The petition alleged that Lake "did take Plaintiff's property without the knowledge or permission of the Plaintiff" and that "while in the Defendant's possession the property was caused to be damaged and depreciated in an amount over $5,000 as a result of a motor vehicle collision." Though Lake's mother was named in the petition as a co-defendant, the only allegation in the petition regarding her was "that defendant Lake is a minor living with his parent and guardian, Natalie Aldridge."

The matter was heard in a bench trial before the Honorable Robert D. McCallister. Defendants, Aldridge and her minor son, appeared pro se. Plaintiff appeared in person and by counsel. Plaintiff gave brief testimony concerning her stolen car and what it was worth; she indicated among other things that the vehicle was a total loss after the crash and that its value at the time of the accident had been approximately $7,000. The police report of the incident was then admitted into evidence at the judge's request. It indicates that Lake told the police that he had been at his school bus stop in Castle Point, waiting for his school bus that morning, when the older teen (identified as one Allistar Green) approached and stopped in front of him and offered him a ride to school. He accepted the offer. He also said that during the ride he noticed a broken key and steering column, and realized then that the car had been stolen. He asked Green about this, and Green told him he had just bought the car from someone for $2,700. The report further stated that when Green dropped him off, Principal Bluette saw that Green was driving erratically and told him to leave.

Natalie Aldridge then offered very brief testimony. She testified that her son had been waiting at the bus stop when the older teen had offered him a ride and taken him to school. She testified further her son Steven did not even know how to drive. At that point counsel for Plaintiff interjected that this was a vehicle tampering/theft matter and that "the police report indicates he [meaning Steven Lake, the minor Defendant] was involved in it"----which in fact the police report does not indicate at all. The trial court then asked, sua sponte, who the driver of the vehicle had been. In response Defendant Lake, without being formally sworn in, spoke up and identified the driver by name. The court asked counsel if he wanted to ask either defendant any more questions. Counsel said no, but offered the following closing comment: "It's a theft loss, no matter who's involved. They're all totally responsible."

The court took the matter under submission, and entered its judgment the following day. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Review of a court-tried case is governed by the principles set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1996). The judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it erroneously declares or erroneously applies the law. Id.

Defendants...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Olten
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 2010
    ...of unreasonable, speculative or forced inferences.' " State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181, 184 (Mo. banc 2001) (quoting Bauby v. Lake, 995 S.W.2d 10, 13 n. 1 (Mo.App. E.D.1999)).Analysis "[T]he Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt......
  • Bauby v. Lake, 74820
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 1999

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT