Hargis v. Lankford
| Decision Date | 21 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 31215.,SD 31215. |
| Citation | 372 S.W.3d 82 |
| Parties | William HARGIS and Mary Hargis, Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Randall LANKFORD, Defendant/Third–Party Plaintiff–Respondent, and Darrel Routledge, Defendant/Third–Party Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Application for Transfer
Denied Aug. 14, 2012.
Nikki E. Cannezzaro, for Appellant.
Edward J. Hershewe, Michelle Boehm O'Neal, Katrina R. Richards, for Respondents, Hargis.
Ed Dougherty, for Respondent, Lankford.
Darrel Routledge (“Appellant”) caused a collision to occur on Highway 60 when he attempted a left turn in front of a vehicle driven by John Hoffman. A second accident 1 occurred within minutes when Lankford and Hargis 2 collided. The jury found Appellant eighty percent at fault and Lankford twenty percent at fault. Appellant brings two points on appeal entwined in the same legal theory: that the negligence of Lankford was, as a matter of law, the intervening cause of the second accident. In the first point, Appellant claims the trial court should have granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in the second point that the court should have granted a new trial. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
Clevenger v. Oliver Ins. Agency, Inc., 237 S.W.3d 588, 590 (Mo. banc 2007). “In determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the result reached by the jury[.]” Giddens v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 29 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Mo. banc 2000). We will reverse the jury's verdict for insufficient evidence only when there is a complete absence of probative fact supporting the jury's conclusion. Id.
The standard of review for an order denying a motion for new trial is abuse of discretion. Bowan ex rel. Bowan v. Express Med. Transporters, Inc., 135 S.W.3d 452, 456 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). When a trial court rules in a way that is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before it and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration, it has abused its discretion. Id. at 456, 460. The denial of a new trial is an abuse of discretion when it is based on findings not substantially supported by the record. Id. at 456. “If a trial court refuses to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, appellate courts will not pass on the weight of the evidence.” Veach v. Chicago and North Western Transp. Co., 719 S.W.2d 767, 769 (Mo. banc 1986).
Appellant cites all of the facts in the light most favorable to his position. Appellant claims:
U.S. Highway 60 is a two-lane highway with shoulders on both sides of the road. The “shoulders” of the roadway near the accident site are very wide. According to Officer Clinton Mason of the Missouri Highway Patrol, the shoulders are plenty wide to pull a car off on the shoulder. This area of the highway is as straight and flat as a road can be.
....
At the time of the collision, Ms. Mendenhall, with her daughter as a passenger, was traveling westbound on U.S. Highway 60, following the Hoffman vehicle by three to five car-lengths. When the collision occurred, Ms. Mendenhall slowed her vehicle and traveled through the area of the roadway where the collision had just taken place and pulled off on the shoulder in front of the Hoffman vehicle. Once safely out of the way of passing traffic, Ms. Mendenhall then exited her vehicle and walked back to the Hoffman vehicle to check on the occupants and provide assistance, if needed.
....
Ms. Mendenhall observed the second accident take place.... Ms. Mendenhall believes that there was debris in the form of a truck axle in [the] roadway which Mr. Lan[k]ford's vehicle hit. In her statement after the accident, Ms. Mendenhall did not say anything about the axle. Ms. Mendenhall additionally did not have any problem in traveling through the accident scene after the accident where she claims the axle came to rest.
Marie Hoffman is the cousin of defendant Randall Lankford. Ms. Hoffman was a passenger in the Hoffman vehicle which was involved in the first accident.... Ms. Hoffman does not believe there was any reason for Mr. Lankford's vehicle to go left of the center line.
Additionally, at some point during this time and prior to the second accident, Ms. Hoffman's church friends, Carolyn and Richard Barnes, arrived at the scene of the accident. The Barnes' were also coming from the East heading West on U.S. 60. They were able to drive through the area where the collision occurred past the Routledge, Hoffman and Mendenhall vehicles, ultimately parking on the right-hand (north) side of the road in front of the Mendenhall vehicle.
Around the time of the accident between the Hoffman vehicle and the Routledge vehicle, Julia Bishop was returning to her home which is right near the area where the accident occurred.... Having observed that these vehicles had been in an accident, Ms. Bishop traveled partially through the accident scene and pulled over to the eastbound shoulder on the south side of Highway 60 to check on the occupants of the Hoffman vehicle.
....
After [another witness] got through the area where the accident occurred, he continued to watch the accident scene in his rearview mirror. [He] observed Mr. Lankford's truck traveling behind him as it approached the area of the accident. Through his rearview mirror, he saw Mr. Lankford's truck move over into the eastbound lane and collide head on with the Hargis vehicle traveling in [the] middle of the eastbound lane.
....
Once [Mr. Lankford] realized he was coming upon the scene of an accident, he let his foot off the accelerator. Mr. Lankford did not apply his brakes. As he let off the gas, Mr. Lankford gradually scooted over to the left. It was not his intention to cross over into the eastbound lane. Mr. Lankford testified he did not cross the centerline. He claims that he scooted to the left to avoid running over any debris and avoid hitting someone if they got out of one of the vehicles.
Additional facts, in the light most favorable to the verdict, shed light on the issue, including: The accidents occurred within a few minutes, at the most, of each other and at dusk. Appellant described the second accident as “pretty instantly.” Ms. Mendenhall testified that the entire incident occurred in approximately five minutes, from the beginning of the first collision to the third collision. The patrolman who responded to the accident scene, Corporal Cornett, testified that the second accident happened approximately one minute after the first. Ms. Mendenhall testified the road was pretty well covered with debris; she was able to make it through the debris because she actually witnessed the collision and she had to slow down and pull to the “very far right” and then go “between the red car and some debris.” A fair amount of the debris in the road was from Appellant's vehicle. Ms. Mendenhall further testified “there was quite a bit of debris in the road,” including a bumper, an axle, and parts of either fiberglass or plastic. The debris was located towards “the center of the road,” more in the westbound lane, toward the center. She did not think there was any way a driver could avoid the axle that obstructed the road if the driver were to continue straight and not pull to the side. She was driving a Yukon XL, which sits quite high above the ground. She had her daughter put her head out the window to watch the clearance on the side of the car so she could avoid the debris. She missed the Hoffman vehicle by mere inches and believed her vehicle may have grazed the same detached axle that Lankford hit. In other words, the first collision, which Appellant undisputedly caused, left debris on the roadway of the rear axle, carrier bearing, and drive shaft from Appellant's vehicle.
Ms. Mendenhall also had a clear view of the collision between Lankford and Hargis and stated both vehicles were towards the center of the road, but she did not She believed the debris caused the second accident. She was not sure either car crossed over the center line, but both vehicles were towards the center. She testified “[t]here [were] a few other car accidents before [the witnesses and bystanders] realized [they] needed to clear the road.” They did not get the larger debris cleared until after the Lankford/Hargis accident, and there was still smaller debris and glass in the roadway after the police officers arrived.
The tow truck driver, Mr. Macy, testified that the rear end of Appellant's truck was “pretty close to probably the white line.” Trooper Mason testified that if a door was open on the Hoffman vehicle, it could extend three or four feet into the lane of U.S. 60. Hargis testified, “When there's a car on the shoulder, you always have a fear that somebody might get out and open a door, so I was careful of that.” The primary job of the Highway Patrol is to open the roadway and to keep other accidents from happening at an accident site. It is a common phenomenon for people near the scene to stop and render assistance, and typically park in different spots about the accident site. It is also a known phenomenon that debris drifts in the direction that vehicles are traveling after an impact and as a result of a collision. Here, debris was spread throughout the roadway, much of it drifting to the west of the intersection where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rayman v. Abbott Ambulance, Inc., ED 105126
...immediate cause of the injury, but it may not consist of merely an act of concurring or contributing negligence." Hargis v. Lankford, 372 S.W.3d 82, 87 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (quoting Buck v. Union Elec. Co., 887 S.W.2d 430, 434 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994) ). The issue is whether the intervening act......
-
Pitman v. Ameristep Corp.
...the defect in the product is the "cause or act of which the injury was the natural and probable consequence." Hargis v. Lankford , 372 S.W.3d 82, 87 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (citing United Mo. Bank, N.A. v. City of Grandview , 105 S.W.3d 890, 896 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) ). The test is whether after ......
-
Landers v. Monsanto Co.
...Pitman v. Ameristep Corp.,Case No. 2:14-CV-85 ERW, 2016 WL 5373530, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2016) (citing Hargis v. Lankford, 372 S.W.3d 82, 87 (Mo. App. 2012)). Generally, whether proximate causation exists is a question for the jury. Tompkins v. Cervantes, 917 S.W.2d 186, 190 (Mo. App. ......
-
McCarter v. Davis
...of an intervening cause which eclipses the role of the original actor's negligence in the plaintiffs injury." Hargis v. Lankford, 372 S.W.3d 82, 87 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). In Metzger v. Schermesser, 687 S.W.2d 671 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985), the court reversed a trial court's decision to grant a dire......