Frantz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Decision Date04 August 1975
Docket NumberNo. KCD,KCD
Citation526 S.W.2d 345
PartiesLeita R. FRANTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. 26978.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Stanley W. Baker, Roger D. Odneal, Morrison, Baker & Odneal, Raytown, for appellant.

Spencer J. Brown, Deacy & Deacy, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before WASSERSTROM, P.J., and SHANGLER and DIXON, JJ.

DIXON, Judge.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff's motion for new trial and notice of appeal were timely filed. In Count II of her third amended petition, the plaintiff-insured prayed for $10,000 damages against the defendant-insurer under an uninsured motorist clause of the plaintiff's automobile insurance policy. The plaintiff was injured as she attempted to cross a street behind a car which backed into her as it was leaving a parking space, knocking her down. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Count I of her petition against co-defendant Maurice Righter, the uninsured driver of the car.

In the points relied on section of her brief, the plaintiff's single point is, 'The court erred in giving Instruction No. 3 requested by defendant as there was no evidence before the jury to support a finding that a 'place of safety' existed or that plaintiff stepped into the 'immediate path of the station wagon,' and accordingly permitted the jury to speculate and impose its own standards in making their findings.' However, in the argument portion of her brief, the plaintiff raises another point, to-wit: that the trial court erred in failing to include in Instruction No. 3, submitting contributory negligence, definitions of the terms, 'place of safety' and 'immediate path.' Although the point is not properly raised under the points relied on section of the plaintiff's brief, and therefore not properly for appellate review, it will be considered ex gratia.

In reviewing the plaintiff's contention that the evidence is not sufficient to support the contributory negligence instruction, the evidence will be reviewed in the light most favorable to the verdict with all the inferences from the evidence drawn in favor of the verdict. Blackburn v. Katz Drug Co., 250 S.W.2d 668 (Mo.App.1975). The evidence shows that at approximately 10:00 a.m., on January 9, 1970, the plaintiff was walking north on the west side of Walnut Street between 15th and 16th Streets in Kansas City, Missouri. At approximately 1532 Walnut Street, a driveway crosses the sidewalk. The plaintiff walked to the middle of the driveway and stopped. She stood there looking north to the intersection of 15th and Walnut Streets to see if the light controlling that intersection was permitting traffic to travel south on Walnut, because she was planning to cross Walnut Street to the east, where she had parked her car. The plaintiff testified that as she stood in the middle of the driveway on the sidewalk she was approximately one foot from the edge of the street. There was no curbing at the point where the driveway crossed the sidewalk. She also testified that she was two feet from the rear of the car which eventually injured her. She was holding in her right hand a box containing a vacuum cleaner. The plaintiff says that as she stood in the driveway on the sidewalk looking north, she felt pressure against her right leg. Turning her head, she saw that the car which had been parallel parked in the space immediately south of the driveway entrance was backing up causing its rear bumper to push against the box. '. . . I tried to get out of the way but I couldn't fast enough, and it knocked me down.' Her scream as the car knocked her down alerted Maurice Righter, the driver of the car, who stopped and pulled his car forward into its original parking position. He went to the rear of his car to see what had caused the screaming. The plaintiff was immediately taken to a hospital. Her leg was placed in a cast, and she remained in the hospital several days. Clinical therapy for her injured leg continued for several months. She testified that she has never regained the full use of her right leg.

Mr. Righter testified that he had parked his car immediately to the south of the driveway in question at approximately 9:30 on the morning of January 9, 1970. He testified that the driveway was approximately 7 to 8 feet wide. He said that there was no car parked in the parking space in the street immediately to the north of the driveway. He said he pulled his car into the parking space just south of the driveway without backing into it.

Mr. Righter said that immediately after he entered his car prior to leaving, he noticed a lady to the right front of his car walking north on the sidewalk carrying a box. He said that he then proceeded to start his car and fasten his seatbelt. Mr. Righter's station wagon had glass along both sides and the rear of the vehicle. He said that prior to backing his car he looked over his shoulder to the rear and to the side. He said he also looked in his rear view mirror. He did not see the plaintiff at the side or the rear of his car. He said that 45 seconds elapsed from the time he saw the woman carrying the box walking north on the sidewalk at the right front of his car until he put his car in motion towards the rear. He said that as he backed up he was generally looking to the rear, but that he never saw the plaintiff. The first time he noticed anything amiss was when he heard the plaintiff's scream. He said that he first heard her scream after he had backed the car two feet at approximately one-half mile per hour. When he heard the scream, he stopped his vehicle and immediately moved it forward to its original position. Mr. Righter said that he found the plaintiff lying in a semi-prone position to the right rear of his car with her head to the west, the sidewalk side. She was 'half-in and half-out of the street.' Mr. Righter testified that her legs were in the street and her buttocks were on the edge of the driveway. Mr. Righter said, 'She was sitting where the curb should have been.' Mr. Righter testified that he had backed his car straight; that he did not turn his wheel. Righter said that from the time he saw the woman at the right front of the car carrying the box until he saw the plaintiff lying at the right rear of his car he never saw anyone to the right side or to the rear of his car.

The plaintiff testified unequivocally that at no time did she attempt to step into the street behind the Righter car. However, Dr. Paul Meyer, the physician who treated plaintiff's injury on the day that it occurred, read in deposition testimony the notes that he made about plaintiff's injury from the statements which she gave to him about the accident. The report read, 'The patient was struck and knocked down by a car moving slowly backwards as she attempted to pass behind it this morning while working.' Later in the deposition, Dr. Meyer said, 'The patient was going across the street when the accident happened.'

Officer Carl Jackman investigated the accident. At trial, he read that part of his police report which indicated how Mrs Frantz described the accident to him. The report read, 'Did not want to go to crosswalk to cross street to her parked car. Mrs. Frantz stated that before stepping in street she looked north to be sure no cars were coming. Did not realize No. 1 parked car was backing from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Vinyard v. Herman
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 9, 1979
    ...most favorable to the verdict with all the inferences from the evidence drawn in favor of the verdict. Frantz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 526 S.W.2d 345, 346(1) (Mo.App.1975). When so viewed and in substance, the evidence disclosed that prior to selling his shares in the close corpor......
  • Stehlin v. Henry, 37388
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 14, 1977
    ...here, we examine the evidence to determine the sufficiency of proof to support the verdict. In Frantz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 526 S.W.2d 345, 346 (1) (Mo.App.1975), the court stated "(T)he evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict with all the......
  • Reason v. Payne
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 12, 1990
    ...within the brief. The term "forgery" is a word of common usage. It is not calculated to confuse the jury. Frantz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 526 S.W.2d 345, 349 (Mo.App.1975). The real question is whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to believe the account was procured b......
  • Abbey v. Heins
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 25, 1977
    ...evidence which is favorable to plaintiff and disregard that which is not favorable to plaintiff. Frantz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 526 S.W.2d 345(1) (Mo.App.1975). The accident giving rise to this action occurred shortly after midnight on February 4, 1970. Defendant's car left the ......
  • 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