Hartley v. Matejka
Decision Date | 20 July 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 10746,10746 |
Citation | 585 S.W.2d 240 |
Parties | Donald HARTLEY and Danna Sue Hartley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. Tamara E. MATEJKA, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert H. Handley, Church & Handley, Springfield, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Leland L. Gannaway, Taylor, Stafford, Gannaway & Woody, Springfield, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff Donald Hartley was awarded $75 damages in his claim for personal injuries, and the jury found in favor of the defendant on plaintiff Danna Hartley's count for loss of consortium. We affirm.
Liability of the defendant for her automobile rear-ending the car being occupied by Donald was not a serious trial issue. Donald's vehicle was stopped at a stop light when defendant's car, travelling five to ten miles an hour, ran into the stopped automobile. The collision caused two cracks in the paint on the front bumper of the defendant's car and two small bumps on each side of the rear license plate of the stopped vehicle. The front car moved ahead three or four feet after it was struck by defendant's automobile.
Donald, a Springfield police officer, remained at the scene while another officer investigated the accident. He then drove his automobile, a police car, to police headquarters and filled out an accident report. After completing the report, Donald went to the emergency room of a Springfield hospital for examination and X-rays for which a total charge of $74.40 was made. Four or five months later he received treatment from a chiropractor. Some time later he was examined by another doctor but not treated. Almost ten months after the accident he received acupuncture treatments from a Springfield physician. He did not lose any wages from his regular job as a police officer and left his "moonlighting" job as a store detective at a local department store 48 weeks after the collision. His chief complaint of injury was to his back and both he and his wife testified as to his complaints, limiting of his activities, and his general condition of health before and after the collision. His petition sought damages for the charges made at the emergency room, charges by the acupuncture physician, lost wages, plus a sum for pain and suffering. Plaintiff-wife, in response to her counsel's question "Is there any difference in your marital relations with your husband?", replied:
Plaintiffs' first assignment of error in this appeal is that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence. This point preserves nothing for appellate review. Robbins v. Robbins, 328 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.1959). Such an assignment in itself implies that there is some evidence to support the verdict. Palmer v. Lasswell, 267 S.W.2d 492 (Mo.App.1954). Whether a jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence is a question for the trial court alone. Wilcox v. Coons, 362 Mo. 381, 241 S.W.2d 907 (banc 1951). The weight of the evidence is not a matter for an appellate court. Borden v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 541 S.W.2d 53 (Mo.App.1976); Herrman Lumber Co. v. Cox, 521 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.App.1975).
Plaintiffs' second point, that the jury's verdict was so grossly inadequate as to indicate that it resulted from passion and prejudice, meets a similar fate. Rule 78.07, V.A.M.R., requires that allegations of error (with certain exceptions not applicable herein) must be presented to the trial court in a motion for a new trial. Rule 84.13(a) states that no allegations of error shall be considered on appeal, except such as have been presented to the trial court. General allegations in the motion are sufficient if based upon specific objection or requests made during the trial. Otherwise specific allegations must be made. In any event the allegations must be sufficiently definite to direct the court's attention to the particular acts or rulings asserted to be erroneous. Thus, the grounds of an after-trial motion must be specific, not general, and deficiencies in an after-trial motion cannot be supplied by appellant's brief. Pasley v. Newton, 455 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App.1970)...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowman v. Burlington Northern, Inc.
...sufficiently definite to direct the trial court's attention to the particular acts or rulings asserted to be erroneous. Hartley v. Matejka, 585 S.W.2d 240 (Mo.App.1979); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Heim, 483 S.W.2d 410 (Mo.App.1972); Pasley v. Newton, 455 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App.197......
-
Williams By and Through Wilford v. Barnes Hosp., 68957
...the allegations for review; nor may deficiencies in the motion be supplied from the movant's brief on appeal. Hartley v. Matejka, 585 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Mo.App.1979). In its motion for new trial, appellant alleged that "Defendant was denied its Constitutional rights to an impartial panel of t......
-
State v. Dunagan
...to the errors which a party claims the court has made and to give that court an opportunity to correct them." In Hartley v. Matejka, 585 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Mo.App.1979), the opinion explained that while general allegations in a motion for new trial are sufficient if based upon specific object......
-
C.a.W. v. Weston
...the meaning of section 452.410. See, e.g. Walsh v. St. Louis Nat. Baseball Club, 822 S.W.2d 559, 563 (Mo.App. 1992); Hartley v. Matejka, 585 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Mo.App. 1979). Since Mother never gave the trial judge a chance to address the question she now raises on appeal, her point is not pr......
-
Settlement negotiations
...v. Quady , 220 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 1974). Mississippi Tribble v. Gregory , 288 So. 2d 13 (Miss. 1974). Missouri Hartley v. Matejka , 585 S.W.2d 240 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). Montana Duffy v. Lipsman-Fulkerson & Co. , 200 F Supp. 71 (D. Ct. Mont. 1961) (applying Montana law). Nebraska Luther v. Map......
-
Settlement Negotiations
...v. Quady , 220 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 1974). Mississippi Tribble v. Gregory , 288 So. 2d 13 (Miss. 1974). Missouri Hartley v. Matejka , 585 S.W.2d 240 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). Montana Duffy v. Lipsman-Fulkerson & Co. , 200 F Supp. 71 (D. Ct. Mont. 1961) (applying Montana law). Nebraska Luther v. Map......
-
Settlement Negotiations
...v. Quady , 220 N.W.2d 478 (Minn. 1974). Mississippi Tribble v. Gregory , 288 So. 2d 13 (Miss. 1974). Missouri Hartley v. Matejka , 585 S.W.2d 240 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). Montana Duffy v. Lipsman-Fulkerson & Co. , 200 F Supp. 71 (D. Ct. Mont. 1961) (applying Montana law). Nebraska Luther v. Map......