Riley v. HEADLAND, No. SD 29716.

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Benjamin A. Stringer, Steven J. Blair, Springfield, for Respondent
• Citation: 311 S.W.3d 891
• Parties: Autumn RILEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Guy HEADLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. SD 29716.
• Decision Date: 29 June 2010

311 S.W.3d 891

Autumn RILEY, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Guy HEADLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. SD 29716.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

April 14, 2010.

Motion for Rehearing or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 6, 2010.

Application for Transfer Denied June 29, 2010.

311 S.W.3d 892

H. Edward Ryals, St. Louis, John M. Vaught, Denver, CO, for Appellant.

Benjamin A. Stringer, Steven J. Blair, Springfield, for Respondent.

DAVID C. DALLY, Special Judge.

Guy Headland (Defendant) appeals the trial court's judgment that awarded future medical and future non-economic damages, claiming that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal standard for awarding such damages. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

This cause arose out of a motor vehicle collision in the City of Springfield between Autumn Riley (Plaintiff) and Defendant. Defendant had spent several hours after work drinking before starting home and colliding with the rear of Plaintiff's vehicle. Prior to trial, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of liability. Defendant did not file a response and the trial court entered judgment sustaining Plaintiff's summary judgment motion.

A bench trial was held on the issue of damages only and the trial court entered written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Judgment. The court awarded Plaintiff $900,000.00 in damages resulting from the collision. The trial court found

311 S.W.3d 893

that Plaintiff sustained, and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future, the following damages

 Past Medical $ 27,824.31
                 Future Medical $146,496.53
                 Past non-economic $100,000.00
                 Future non-economic $625,679.16
                 Total $900,000.00
                

Defendant timely appealed the award of future damages.

Discussion

Defendant's sole point on appeal states, "The trial court committed reversible error in awarding damages for the future consequences of Plaintiff's injuries where it failed to apply the correct legal standard for awarding such damages." We note that Defendant's Point Relied On is deficient for failing to comply with Rule 84.04(d) in a number of ways. Rule 84.04(d) states:

(1) Where the appellate court reviews the decision of a trial court, each point shall:

(A) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges;

(B) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and

(C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.

The point shall be in substantially the following form: "The trial court erred in identify the challenged ruling or action because state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error, in that explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error."

Defendant's point relied on is deficient in that it does not state the legal reasons for his claim of reversible error and why, in the context of the case, such legal reasons support his claim of reversible error. Defendant's point claims the trial court failed to apply the "correct legal standard" without describing the erroneous legal standard that was applied or the "correct legal standard" that should have been applied. We are not being overly technical. It is important that the rule be followed so we "do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made." Arch Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 294 S.W.3d 520, 522 (Mo.App.2009) (quoting Bridges v. American...