Douglass v. Safire, No. 67778

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBLACKMAR
Citation712 S.W.2d 373
PartiesGlenda Mae DOUGLASS (now Richey), Plaintiff-Respondent, v. George SAFIRE, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael RICHEY, Third Party Defendant-Respondent.
Decision Date17 June 1986
Docket NumberNo. 67778

Page 373

712 S.W.2d 373
Glenda Mae DOUGLASS (now Richey), Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
George SAFIRE, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Michael RICHEY, Third Party Defendant-Respondent.
No. 67778.
Supreme Court of Missouri,
En Banc.
June 17, 1986.

James C. Johns, William J. Cason, Michael X. Edgett, Fred R. Bunch, Clinton, for defendant/third party plaintiff-appellant.

Stanley Brian Cox, Sedalia, for plaintiff-respondent.

BLACKMAR, Judge.

Glenda Mae Douglass (now Richey) sued George Safire on account of injuries she sustained in a collision between his automobile and the motorcycle on which she was riding. Safire brought a third-party action against Michael Richey, the operator of the motorcycle, and now Glenda's husband. She then amended her complaint to seek a judgment against Michael.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Glenda and against Safire and Michael, signed by nine jurors and reading as follows:

VERDICT A

Note: Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of plaintiff Glenda Mae Douglas Richey against defendant George Safire we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor of:

/s/ Glenda Mae Douglas Richey

---------------------------------------------------

(Plaintiff Glenda Mae or (Defendant George Safire)

Douglas Richey)

Page 374

Note: Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of plaintiff Glenda Mae Douglass Richey.

We, the undersigned jurors, find the damages of plaintiff Glenda Mae Douglas Richey to be as follows:

For personal injuries $60,000.00 (stating the amount or, if none, write the word, 'none').

Note: Complete by writing in the percentage of fault you assess to each of those named below. If you believe any of those named below is not at fault, write in 'zero' for that percentage. The total of the percentages you assess must be 100%.

We, the undersigned jurors, assess the percentages of fault as follows:

Glenda Mae Douglas Richey 0%
                 ----
                George Safire 85%
                 ----
                Michael Richey 15%
                 ----
                Total 100%
                 ----
                

On Safire's third party claim, a verdict signed by all 12 jurors was returned, in the following terms:

VERDICT B

Note: Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict.

On the claim of Third Party Plaintiff George Safire for property damage against Third Party Defendant Michael Richey, we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor of:

Michael Richey

--------------------------------------------

Third Party Plaintiff Third Party Defendant

George Safire Michael Richey

Note: Complete the following paragraphs only if the above finding is in favor of Third Party Plaintiff George Safire.

We, the undersigned jurors, find the total property damages of Third Party Plaintiff George Safire to be $__________ (stating...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 practice notes
  • State v. Pierce, No. SC 93321.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 24, 2014
    ...usual rule that the trial court must be given the opportunity to correct error while correction is still possible.” Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Mo. banc 1986) (emphasis added). The purpose of the constitutional deadline for timely retrials under article I, section 19, is not to......
  • Combs v. Hahn, No. 25824.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 11, 1999
    ...Cal.3d 512, 522, 143 Cal.Rptr. 247, 253, 573 P.2d 465, 471 (1978); Hamilton v. Wrang, 221 A.2d 605, 606 (Del.1966); Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Mo.1986); Eberhard Mfg. Co. v. Baldwin, 97 Nev. 271, 273, 628 P.2d 681, 682 (1981); Dunn v. Moss, 193 A.D.2d 983, 985-86, 598 N.Y.S.2d......
  • Kansas City Power & Light v. Bibb & Assoc., No. WD 64456.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 9, 2006
    ...intent expressed therein. Thorne v. Thorne, 350 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Mo.1961), 197 S.W.3d 155 overruled on other grounds by Douglass Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. banc 1986); Robinson v. Riverside Concrete, Inc., 544 S.W.2d 865, 871 (Mo.App.1976). The verdict is construed liberally when attemptin......
  • Ross v. Ford Motor Credit Co., Nos. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 12, 1993
    ...It made no claim for inconsistency after the verdicts were returned and before the jury was discharged. See Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Mo. banc 1986); Edna Enters., Inc. v. Spirco Envtl., Inc., 853 S.W.2d 388, 391 As to the conversion count, the judgment is affirmed as to actu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • State v. Pierce, No. SC 93321.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 24, 2014
    ...usual rule that the trial court must be given the opportunity to correct error while correction is still possible.” Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Mo. banc 1986) (emphasis added). The purpose of the constitutional deadline for timely retrials under article I, section 19, is not to......
  • Combs v. Hahn, No. 25824.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 11, 1999
    ...Cal.3d 512, 522, 143 Cal.Rptr. 247, 253, 573 P.2d 465, 471 (1978); Hamilton v. Wrang, 221 A.2d 605, 606 (Del.1966); Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Mo.1986); Eberhard Mfg. Co. v. Baldwin, 97 Nev. 271, 273, 628 P.2d 681, 682 (1981); Dunn v. Moss, 193 A.D.2d 983, 985-86, 598 N.Y.S.2d......
  • Kansas City Power & Light v. Bibb & Assoc., No. WD 64456.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 9, 2006
    ...intent expressed therein. Thorne v. Thorne, 350 S.W.2d 754, 757 (Mo.1961), 197 S.W.3d 155 overruled on other grounds by Douglass Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. banc 1986); Robinson v. Riverside Concrete, Inc., 544 S.W.2d 865, 871 (Mo.App.1976). The verdict is construed liberally when attemptin......
  • Ross v. Ford Motor Credit Co., Nos. WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 12, 1993
    ...It made no claim for inconsistency after the verdicts were returned and before the jury was discharged. See Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Mo. banc 1986); Edna Enters., Inc. v. Spirco Envtl., Inc., 853 S.W.2d 388, 391 As to the conversion count, the judgment is affirmed as to actu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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