Beyer v. Pick
| Decision Date | 16 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 32744,32744 |
| Parties | Cecelia Mae BEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edwin A. PICK, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Albert George Beyer, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Dearing, Richeson, Weier & Roberts, H. L. C. Weier, Hillsboro, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff, Cecelia Mae Beyer, sued Edwin A. Pick for damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a collision between an automobile she was driving and one operated by defendant. The Court sustained the motion of defendant for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case. From the judgment for defendant entered upon said verdict, plaintiff brings this appeal. In this Court plaintiff contends that the Court erred in sustaining an objection to a hypothetical question propounded to one of her witnesses, and in sustaining defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
The petition upon which the case was tried is in two counts.
Count I alleged that on the 21st day of October, 1963, plaintiff was driving an automobile south in the passing lane of Highway 21, a four lane public highway; that while on an uphill grade, she accelerated the speed of her car to 50 or 55 miles an hour at which time defendant's automobile struck her car in the rear causing damage to said car and injury to her.
The negligence charged against defendant was (1) operating his automobile at a high and dangerous rate of speed under the circumstances; (2) failing to exercise the highest degree of care to keep a lookout for persons and automobiles on said highway; (3) in failing to exercise the highest degree of care to have said automobile under control, by following more closely than reasonably safe and prudent under the speed, traffic and road conditions; (4) in negligently failing to sound a warning of the approach of said automobile for the protection of persons and automobiles ahead and, (5) in failing to swerve his automobile, when by doing so, he could have avoided the accident.
It was further alleged that by reason of the collision plaintiff's automobile was extensively damaged, and that plaintiff received severe and permanent personal injuries. The alleged injuries are set out in the petition. It was further alleged that by reason of the specific negligence alleged, plaintiff was required to expend the sum of $153.80 in having her automobile repaired and lost the use of said car in her business for a period of seven days; that she was unable to perform her duties as a real estate and insurance broker for a period of two days, and that her injuries continued to affect her duties in carrying on her business resulting in a loss of $5,000.00. The prayer of the first count of the petition was for damages in the sum of $10,350.00.
The second count of said petition alleged humanitarian negligence on the part of defendant as the cause of plaintiff's damage.
Defendant's answer denied the allegations of both counts of the petition, and as an affirmative defense pled that if plaintiff was injured on the occasion in question her injuries were directly and proximately caused by the failure of the plaintiff to exercise the highest degree of care in operating her motor vehicle at said time and place.
The accident occurred about 6:00 or 6:15 the evening of October 21, 1963. It was dusk at the time and plaintiff had turned on the lights of her car. Her husband, Albert George Beyer was with her and was seated to her right. She had been traveling south on Highway 21. Butler Hill Road, an east and west highway, intersects Highway 21 north of the scene of the accident. From about two or three hundred feet south of Butler Hill Road, Highway 21 slopes downward several hundred feet to a dip, thence along said dip for some distance after which it rises in a long sweeping curve to the left. This hill has a six or seven percent grade. Plaintiff testified it was about a quarter of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teichman v. Potashnick Const., Inc., 53645
...that plaintiff's motion for new trial was too general to preserve the question of submissibility for appellate review. In Beyer v. Pick, Mo.App., 428 S.W.2d 1, 3, upon which defendant here relies, the motion for new trial merely recited that 'the court erred in sustaining defendant's motion......
-
Ingle v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co.
...the trial court, the objecting party must make definite objections either at the trial or in the motion for a new trial. Beyer v. Pick, 428 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.App.1968). The appellant at the time of the exclusion of Wilkinson objected by stating, "I certainly object," and "I will object to exc......
-
Plumlee v. Ramsay Dry Goods Co.
...reason that the Court erred in sustaining the defendant's motion for directed verdict.' This immediately confronts us with Beyer v. Pick, Mo.App., 428 S.W.2d 1, 3, where the court said: 'There were no definite objections to the court's action in sustaining the motion and in directing a verd......
-
Fickbohm v. Schoonover, 8910
...for new trial, then nothing is preserved for our review. Plumlee v. Ramsay Dry Goods Company, Mo.App., 451 S.W.2d 603; Beyer v. Pick, Mo.App., 428 S.W.2d 1, 3. See also Marquand Develop. Corp. v. Maisak-Handler Shoe Co., Mo., 260 S.W.2d 242, 245(1). The plain error rule is not invoked here,......