Hines v. Sweet, 9664
| Citation | 518 S.W.2d 710 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 9664,9664 |
| Parties | Blaine HINES and Anna Maude Hines, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. James Henry SWEET, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Buehner & Buehner, L. R. Buehner, Charles Buchanan, Joplin, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Blanchard, Van Fleet, Robertson & Dermott, Jon Dermott, Joplin, for defenmdant-appellant.
Before BILLINGS, C.J., and TITUS and FLANIGAN, JJ.
This is a suit by the plaintiffs-parents for the wrongful death of their daughter. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant but the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial for error in giving a contributory negligence instruction tendered by the defendant. The ruling below was that the disjunctive submission of the decedent's failure to swerve constituted error for the reason there was 'no creditable evidence that she could have or should have swerved in either direction.'
We were initially inclined to dismiss this appeal because the points in the defendant's brief are mere abstract statements of law and fall far short of compliance with Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R. However, in view of the brevity of the transcript and our ability to glean from the argument portion of the defendant's brief the 'wherein(s) and why(s)' he contends the ruling of the trial court was erroneous, we have reluctantly decided to review the action of the trial court, rather than enter an order of dismissal. The bar should read with care the recent case of Kerr v. Ehinger, Inc., 515 S.W.2d 763 (Mo.App.1974), in which our Kansas City brethren, sua sponte, dismissed the appeal of appellants therein by reason of their failure to comply with Rule 84.04. We are in complete agreement with the views expressed in Kerr.
We have carefully examined the transcript and find ourselves in agreement with the trial court that the evidence failed to support the submission of the decedent's failure to swerve. Guess, speculation and conjecture as to speed, distance, position and time do not rise to the dignity of the requisite evidence to support an assignment of negligence. No error of law appears and a detailed opinion would be of no precedential value.
In view of the foregoing we do not deem it necessary to consider plaintiffs' additional charges that the evidence did not warrant submission of the remaining assignments of contributory negligence (failure to keep a careful lookout, or failing to stop or slacken speed).
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hines v. Sweet, 10098
...instruction given at defendant's request. Upon appeal to this court, that order was affirmed and the cause was remanded. Hines v. Sweet, 518 S.W.2d 710 (Mo.App.1975). The subsequent retrial resulted in a unanimous jury verdict for plaintiffs Hines and assessment of plaintiffs' damages at $5......
-
Cragin v. Lobbey
...position and time do not rise to the dignity of the requisite evidence to support an assignment of negligence.' Hines v. Sweet, 518 S.W.2d 710, 711(3) (Mo.App.1975). Moreover, excessive speed cannot be the proximate cause of an accident unless it be shown that the casualty would not have oc......
-
Lee v. Rolla Speedway, Inc.
...Electric Power Cooperative v. Nesselrodt, 509 S.W.2d 468, 470(1) (Mo.App.1974)) and save nothing for appellate review. Hines v. Sweet, 518 S.W.2d 710, 711(1) (Mo.App.1975). Nevertheless, before some unwary reader is misled by the abstraction, we iterate that injunction is distinctly an equi......
-
Long v. Lincoln
...nothing for review because it does not undertake to relate wherein and why the court allegedly erred in any respect. Hines v. Sweet, 518 S.W.2d 710, 711(1) (Mo.App.1975); Kerr v. Ehinger, Inc., 515 S.W.2d 763, 765(2) (Mo.App.1974); Safe-Buy Real Estate Agency, Inc. v. Hemphill, 498 S.W.2d 5......