Geiler v. Boyer, 25971
| Citation | 483 S.W.2d 773 |
| Decision Date | 25 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 25971,25971 |
| Parties | Arthur R. GEILER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. George D. BOYER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Graeff, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.
Philip Eveloff, Muster & Eveloff, St. Joseph, for plaintiff-respondent.
The merits of this appeal, if reached, involve allegations of error that the $6,000 personal injury verdict for plaintiff was excessive and required remittitur, and that the causation between the accident and injury was not shown by competent medical evidence. We dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Civil Rule 84.04(c), (h), V.A.M.R. and do not reach the merits.
At the trial, the dispute was not as to defendant's liability, but whether plaintiff's low back strain was to be attributed to pre-existing spondylolisthesis or was, in fact, an aggravation of that condition. Plaintiff's medical evidence came from Dr. Morse, an orthopedist, and Dr. Seward, a chiropractor, both of whom testified that the trauma of the collision activated a pre-existing asymptomatic condition, resulting in the injury of which plaintiff complained.
Although it is to be fairly assumed that it was upon this evidence the jury returned its verdict for plaintiff, appellant's statement of facts edits much of the content of plaintiff's proof of the injury in order to present a view of facts favorable to his contention that the verdict and judgment were excessive. In doing so, appellant distorts the effect of Dr. Morse's testimony and completely ignores that of Dr. Seward. For instance, an entry in the records of Dr. Morse is given as : "I don't think we should get very excited about this guy and his back", when the full transcript context is: Nor does the statement of facts contain reference to Dr. Morse's testimony that plaintiff would have to go to a full brace or undergo spinal fusion if the symptoms persisted, with potentially serious consequences. There were numerous other kindred omissions.
Although appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Midwest Lumber Co., Inc. v. Sellers
...298, 300, 189 S.W.2d 282, 283(3) (1945); Cady v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 512 S.W.2d 882, 885(6) (Mo.App.1974); Geiler v. Boyer, 483 S.W.2d 773, 774(2) (Mo.App.1972); Glick v. Glick, 360 S.W.2d 333, 335(1) (Mo.App.1962); In re Adoption of P.J.K., 359 S.W.2d 360, 363(3) (Mo.App.1962).3 W......
- Eller Media Co. v. City of Houston
-
Vodicka v. Upjohn Co.
...to comply with the rules of this Court governing the preparation and contents of appellants' briefs." Id. at 45. In Geiler v. Boyer, 483 S.W.2d 773 (Mo.App.1972), the court granted a motion to dismiss an appeal for appellant's failure to comply with Rule 84.04(c), [A]ppellant's statement of......
-
Labor Discount Center, Inc. v. State Bank & Trust Co. of Wellston, 35229
...complete and unbiased understanding of the facts of the case.' Wipfler v. Basler, 250 S.W.2d 982, 984(3) (Mo.1952); Geiler v. Boyer, 483 S.W.2d 773, 774(1) (Mo.App.1972). We do not, however, conclude that the omission from the plaintiff's statement of facts of any reference to the exhibits ......