Reese v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses
| Citation | 19 S.W.3d 749 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. S.D. 2000) Connie Reese, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc., Defendant/Respondent. 23188 0 |
| Decision Date | 26 June 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Greene County, Hon. J. Miles Sweeney
Counsel for Appellant: Charles J. Fain
Counsel for Respondent: Brian E. Hamburg
Opinion Summary: None
Plaintiff appeals from summary judgment entered pursuant to Defendant's motion.
In Plaintiff's petition, she alleged that on or about January 29, 1994, she was a patron in the restaurant owned and operated by Defendant; that she was served from the buffet a serving of blueberries which contained a foreign and dangerous substance that burned and injured her mouth, tongue, nerves and taste buds. She also alleged the injuries are permanent and that she has sought medical treatment; that she no longer has a sense of taste, and that the injuries were a direct result of the negligence of Defendant.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment asserted, among other contentions, that Plaintiff could not show, as alleged, negligence on the part of Defendant, that the blueberries were unfit for human consumption or that any substance in the blueberries caused Plaintiff's alleged injuries.
Plaintiff filed an answer to Defendant's motion for summary judgment that made no specific reference to the motion. The body of the answer stated in its entirety:
COMES NOW the Plaintiff Connie Reese, by her attorney of record,
Charles J. Fain and files her affidavit in answer to and opposed to the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment.
Wherefore, having answered same by said affidavit which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, Plaintiff requests said motion be overruled.
The attached affidavit by Plaintiff essentially restated the facts alleged in her petition.
On appeal, Plaintiff has one point relied on. In it she contends the trial court erred in entering summary judgment because in her petition and affidavit she stated a cause of action in negligence, and there were questions of fact which should have been decided by the jury:
(1) What was the foreign object in the berries; was it dangerous to the health and well-being of this plaintiff?
(2) The type of injury, if any, sustained by the [plaintiff].
(3) Doctors' letters were not a final denial of physical injury incurred by [plaintiff].
In the "argument" portion of her brief, Plaintiff refers only to the letters from doctors. Therefore, we discuss only the contentions as to the letters. This court does not review contentions in points relied on which are not supported by argument in the argument portion under the point to which they refer. Unlimited Equipment Lines, Inc. v. Graphic Arts Centre, Inc., 889 S.W.2d 926, 932 n.1 (Mo.App. 1994). Issues raised in points relied on which are not supported in the argument portion of Appellant's brief are deemed abandoned and present nothing for appellate review. Faith Baptist Church of Berkeley, Inc. v. Heffner, 956 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Mo.App. 1997).
When considering appeals from summary judgments, we review the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.banc 1993). Facts set forth by affidavit or otherwise in support of a party's motion are taken as true unless contradicted by the non-moving party's response to the motion. Id.
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided by the rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavit or as otherwise allowed, must set forth the specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Rule 74.04. Cavin v. Kasser, 820 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Mo.App. 1991). Plaintiff did not do this, and thus her appeal must fail.
Rule 74.04(c)(2) requires in part that a party responding to a motion for summary judgment file a response which:
[s]hall admit or deny each of movant's factual statements in numbered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. Sechler
...court, namely, she was proceeding on the common law claim, and we can only review the case upon that theory. See Reese v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc., 19 S.W.3d 749, 752 [9] Arguably, Plaintiff's petition pleaded the elements of a U.C.C. implied warranty of merchantability claim, albeit......
-
Cornejo v. Crawford County
...this Court reviews "the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered." Reese v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc., 19 S.W.3d 749, 751 (Mo.App.2000). "Facts set forth by affidavit or otherwise in support of a party's motion are taken as true unless contradi......
-
Dueker v. Gill
...a party's motion are taken as true unless contradicted by the non-moving party's response to the motion." Reese v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc., 19 S.W.3d 749, 751 (Mo.App.2000). A grant of summary judgment is appropriate when the movant establishes there are no genuine issues of materia......
-
Jackson v. Cannon
...Jackson did not assert this theory of recovery in the trial court, we will not consider it on appeal. Reese v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc., 19 S.W.3d 749, 752 (Mo.App.2000). Point I is In Jackson's second point, she contends Cannon and Simpkins failed to establish their affirmative defe......