Gardner v. Robinson, 15622
| Decision Date | 28 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 15622,15622 |
| Citation | 759 S.W.2d 867 |
| Parties | John D. GARDNER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bob ROBINSON and Norma Robinson, his wife, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John L. Oliver, Jr., Oliver, Oliver, Waltz & Cook, P.C., Cape Girardeau, for plaintiff-respondent.
James E. Reeves, Ward & Reeves, Caruthersville, for defendants-appellants.
Plaintiff is a dentist who furnished certain professional services to defendants. Following nonjury trial he received a judgment for $1,800 for the unpaid balance of his charges for those services. Defendants appeal.
In defendants' first point they state that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and not supported by substantial evidence because plaintiff's Exhibit 1 was the only evidence to support the judgment and it was improperly admitted in evidence. When the exhibit was offered, among the objections made to it by defendants' counsel was that it was "cumulative and repetitious" because plaintiff had already testified to the facts contained in the exhibit.
Regarding those facts defendants were correct. Plaintiff's testimony was substantially the same as the matters stated in the exhibit, so any error in admitting it, if error occurred, is not reversible. In a nonjury case the rules excluding evidence are less strictly enforced. State v. Hodge, 655 S.W.2d 738, 743 (Mo.App.1983). The admission of improper evidence is not ordinarily a ground for reversal in a nonjury case, at least where it did not appear to have played a critical role in the court's decision. Smead v. Allen, 581 S.W.2d 93, 94 (Mo.App.1979).
An appellate court's primary concern is with the correctness of the trial court's decision and not the route by which it was reached. Kramer v. Leineweber, 642 S.W.2d 364, 369 (Mo.App.1982). It is difficult to base reversible error on the erroneous admission of evidence in a court tried case; the party advancing such a contention must demonstrate that there was an absence of sufficient competent evidence to support the decree. Id.
In a jury-waived case a certain amount of latitude in the admission of evidence is allowed, and even where an error is made in the admission of evidence, except where the trial court relied on that evidence in arriving at its findings, such evidence is ordinarily held to be nonprejudicial. State v. Leigh, 580 S.W.2d 536, 545 (Mo.App.1979). See also Mathis v. Glover, 714 S.W.2d 222, 224 (Mo.App.1986).
There was no prejudicial error in the admission of Exhibit 1. It was cumulative and added nothing to earlier evidence.
Defendants' contention regarding the judgment being against the weight of the evidence also has no merit. In our review of a nonjury trial we set aside a judgment on the grounds that it is against the weight of the evidence with caution and only with a firm belief that the decree or judgment is wrong. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The only detailed evidence on the services and the reasonable charges for them was offered by plaintiff and we have no firm belief that the judgment based on that evidence was wrong.
Defendants filed a counterclaim contending that plaintiff committed malpractice in furnishing the services alleged in his petition. For their second point defendants claim that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim. The services were furnished more than two years before this action was instituted and the trial court dismissed the counterclaim because it was barred by § 516.105, RSMo 1986.
Section 516.105 provides that actions against dentists and others "for damages for malpractice, negligence, error or mistake related to health care shall be brought within two years from the date of occurrence of the act of neglect complained of...." Defendants do not claim that any of the exceptions contained in § 516.105 or § 516.280, RSMo 1986 apply. They acknowledge that State ex rel. Sisters of St. Mary v. Campbell, 511 S.W.2d 141 (Mo.App.1974) and Sisters of St. Mary v. Dennigmann, 730 S.W.2d 589 (Mo.App.1987), are against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boone Nat'l Savings & Loan v. Crouch
...a patient sued for payment for services may raise as a defense that the services were not properly rendered. See Gardner v. Robinson, 759 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Mo. App. 1988). In this case Ms. Crouch asserts affirmative defenses of recoupment and equitable estoppel based on the alleged violation......
-
Sparks v. Sparks
...case, at least where it did not appear to have played a critical role in the court's decision’ ” (quoting Gardner v. Robinson, 759 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Mo.App. S.D.1988))). For the admission of improper evidence to constitute reversible error, a party “ ‘must demonstrate that there was an absen......
-
Washington University v. Royal Crown Bottling Co. of St. Louis
...reversal in a nonjury case, at least where it did not appear to have played a critical role in the court's decision." Gardner v. Robinson, 759 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Mo.App.1988). In a court-tried case, a certain latitude is allowed in the admission of evidence. Except where the trial court relie......
-
Blackburn v. Richardson
...of this, it is difficult to base reversible error on the erroneous admission of evidence in a court-tried case. Gardner v. Robinson, 759 S.W.2d 867, 868 (Mo.App.1988). Even if evidence is improperly admitted, it is harmless error if there is other competent evidence which supports the judgm......