Pretti v. Herre
| Decision Date | 13 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 51443,51444,No. 1,s. 51443,1 |
| Citation | 403 S.W.2d 568 |
| Parties | Virginia M. PRETTI, Respondent, v. Dr. Carl W. HERRE, Jr., Appellant. Ralph V. PRETTE, Respondent, v. Dr. Carl W. HERRE, Jr., Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
J. Martin Anderson, Kansas City, for respondents Pretti.
Henry G. Eager, John J. Kitchin, Kansas City, Swanson, Midgley, Jones, Blackmar & Eager, Kansas City, of counsel, for Dr. Carl W. Herre, Jr.
In these consolidated actions Virginia M. Pretti sought to recover damages for personal injuries in the sum of $50,000, and her husband, Rulph Pretti, also sought damages in the sum of $50,000 for loss of his wife's services, etc. Mrs. Pretti was injured when the car she was driving was struck from the rear by one driven by Dr. Herre. The three cars involved were all being driven in the same direction. Defendant Richard A. Griswold, driving the first car, stopped suddenly when he realized that he had passed the house he was looking for. Mrs. Pretti made a very sudden stop to avoid hitting the Griswold car. Dr. Herre then came over the crest of a hill and was unable to stop before his car collided with the Pretti automobile. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of all defendants. Thereafter, the trial court made the following order: 'Now on this day plaintiffs' motions for a new trial are by the court sustained.' All of the defendants appealed, but Griswold and City Wide Mortgage Company made a settlement with plaintiffs and their appeal has been withdrawn.
Civil Rule 83.06(b), V.A.M.R., provides, in part, as follows: 'When a trial court grants a new trial without specifying of record the ground or grounds on which the new trial is granted, the presumption shall be that the trial court erroneously granted the motion for new trial and the burden of supporting such action is placed on the respondent.' We accordingly ordered plaintiffs-respondents to file the original brief here and they have done so. Plaintiffs have stated two propositions under their 'Points Relied On' but we construe these points as stating only one ground in support of the action of the trial court in granting the new trial, i.e., 'that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the credible evidence.' However, the difficulty with plaintiffs' position is that the ground relied upon is a discretionary one and we are immediately confronted with the provisions of Civil Rule 83.06(c), which states that 'If the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parks v. Union Carbide Corp.
...may not be considered on appeal. Consumer Contact Co. v. Department of Revenue, 592 S.W.2d 782, 785 n. 1 (Mo. banc 1980); Pretti v. Herre, 403 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Mo.1966). On remand, if the trial court determines that a release has been given to appellant, I would direct the court to treat Un......
-
Corley v. Kiser
...Payne v. White, 288 S.W.2d 6, 7-8(1-2) (Mo.App.1956); Maas v. Dreckshage, 244 S.W.2d 397, 403(4) (Mo.App.1951).14 Pretti v. Herre, 403 S.W.2d 568, 569(3) (Mo.1966); Holt v. Rabun, 519 S.W.2d 561, 562(1-2) (Mo.App.1975); O'Connell v. Roper Electric Company, Inc., 498 S.W.2d 847, 856-57(11) (......
-
Consumer Contact Co. v. State, Dept. of Revenue
...an exception to the rule that the transcript may not be supplemented by extraneous matter in one party's briefs. Pretti v. Herre, 403 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Mo.1966); Mullen v. Roberts and Roberts Real Estate, Inc., 550 S.W.2d 588, 590 (Mo.App.1977); State ex rel. Freeze v. City of Cape Girardeau......
-
Kelley v. Hudson
...omission, has been filed by plaintiff's counsel. We may not notice either. Hendershot v. Minich, Mo., 297 S.W.2d 403, 410; Pretti v. Herre, Mo., 403 S.W.2d 568, 569. ...