Chandler v. Mattox
| Decision Date | 23 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 38047,38047 |
| Citation | 544 S.W.2d 85 |
| Parties | Birdie CHANDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. MATTOX, Defendant-Respondent. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Elmer C. Oberhellman, Paul J. Simon, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Gerre S. Langton, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff's suit for negligence was dismissed with prejudice following her admission that her injuries were due in part to her contributory negligence. On appeal, plaintiff argues that dismissal by the trial court was error because the doctrine of contributory negligence should be replaced by the doctrine of comparative negligence which would not bar recovery.
The doctrine of comparative negligence is not the law in Missouri. Howard v. Scarritt Estate Co., 267 Mo. 398, 402, 184 S.W. 1144(2) (1916); Reed v. Shelly, 378 S.W.2d 291(20) (Mo.App.1969). The doctrine of contributory negligence continues to be the applicable law in Missouri, Vanasse v. Plautz, 538 S.W.2d 928(5) (Mo.App.1976); Lee v. Knight, 538 S.W.2d 345 (Mo.App.1976), and the trial court did not err in sustaining a motion for summary judgment based on the application of this doctrine.
Plaintiff raises two other points in her brief which read: , and These points must be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., in that plaintiff does not state any error on the part of the trial court.
After careful review of the record, briefs and authorities, we conclude that the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the plaintiff's suit with prejudice is not erroneous. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allnutt v. United States
...which is a complete barrier to recovery under Missouri law. See, Hobbs v. Renick, 304 F.2d 856 (8th Cir. 1962); Chandler v. Mattox, 544 S.W.2d 85 (Mo.App.1976). Defendant raises essentially two theories for the application of a contributory negligence bar. First, defendant asserts that dece......
-
Wallis v. Mrs. Smith's Pie Co.
...any action brought by a negligent plaintiff. See Howard v. Scarritt Estate Co., 267 Mo. 398, 184 S.W. 1144 (1916), and Chandler v. Mattox, 544 S.W.2d 85 (Mo.App.1976). See also Powell Bros. Truck Line, Inc. v. Barnett, 194 Ark. 769, 109 S.W.2d 673 (1937). Arkansas, on the other hand, follow......