Rogers v. Piper
| Decision Date | 30 August 1976 |
| Citation | 543 S.W.2d 261 |
| Parties | Champ W. ROGERS, Appellant, v. Donald Kirk PIPER, M.D., et al., Respondents. Mo. KCD 27324. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joseph S. Levy, Joseph M. Lapin, Richard M. Shteamer, Kansas City, for appellant.
John R. Gibson, Michael J. Jerde, Kansas City, for St. Joseph Hospital; Morrison, Hecker, Curtis, Kuder & Parrish, Kansas City, of counsel.
Dean F. Arnold, B. William Jacob, Jr., Bagby, Benjamin & Arnold, Kansas City, for Drs. Perll and Piper, Inc., Donald Kirk Piper, Maurice F. Perll and James H. Garner, Jr.
Before TURNAGE, P.J., and WELBORN and HIGGINS, Special Judges.
Plaintiff, Champ W. Rogers, filed suit against Drs. Piper, Perll and Garner, and St. Joseph Hospital for alleged negligence in the treatment of injuries Rogers had received in an automobile accident. The court granted a summary judgment on behalf of all defendants on the basis that Rogers had received full satisfaction for all of his injuries from Lemmons, the other party to the accident.
On this appeal Rogers claims: (1) the physicians did not plead the affirmative defense of release; (2) the court erred as a matter of law in granting summary judgment because the modern trend in this type of case is to look to the intention of the parties rather than to the language of the release; and (3) the court erred because there were questions of fact to be litigated. Affirmed.
Rogers filed his suit against the physicians and the hospital alleging negligence in treatment given to him between November 30, 1970, and March 29, 1971. No negligence on the part of any of the defendants was alleged to have occurred after March 29, 1971, nor was any change in Rogers' condition pleaded to have occurred after March 29, 1971.
In his petition Rogers alleged he had been involved in an automobile accident in the spring of 1970, and the negligence by the defendant physicians and hospital aggravated the injury sustained in such accident.
On January 27, 1973, Rogers and his wife executed a release upon payment of the sum of $17,000. Such release stated it was to 'RELEASE AND FOREVER DISCHARGE Jack T. Lemmons, his agents and servants, and all other persons, firms and corporations of and from any and all liability, actions, claims, demands or suits whatsoever, which claimants now have or may hereafter have, on account of or arising out of personal injuries or damage to person or property, or impairment of or damage to any right, including loss of time, loss of services of society, and expenses, or other damage sustained by or accruing to the undersigned as the result of an accident, casualty or event which occurred on or about the 26th day of June, 1970, at or near 10300 South 71 Highway in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri.' Such release further stated 'that the above mentioned sole consideration is accepted in full compromise, settlement, accord and satisfaction of all the aforesaid claims and demands, including all consequences thereof which may hereafter develop as well as those already developed or now apparent.' The release continued 'and it is fully understood and agreed that this agreement is in compromise and settlement of all claims of every kind.'
After the execution of such release, Rogers' attorney entered into a stipulation for dismissal of Rogers' suit against Lemmons with prejudice.
In the instant suit the physicians pleaded that Rogers, by a prior action, had received full and complete satisfaction for any and all injuries alleged in his petition. The physicians and the hospital thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment in which it was claimed the court should enter summary judgment because Rogers had received full accord and satisfaction and was thereby barred from any further action. In connection with this motion, request for admissions were filed, to which were attached a copy of the release executed by Rogers and his wife and a copy of the stipulation for dismissal of the suit by Rogers against Lemmons executed by the attorneys in that case. The existence and genuineness of these documents was admitted by Rogers.
Rogers first claims the granting of the motion for summary judgment was erroneous because the physicians had failed to plead the existence of a release. However, the physicians did plead that Rogers had received full satisfaction for his injuries through his settlement with Lemmons. The theory upon which the physicians and the hospital proceeded in their quest for a summary judgment was that Rogers has been fully compensated for all of his injuries, including any injuries he may have received as a result of any negligence on the part of the physicians and the hospital. The release was evidence of the settlement entered into by Rogers and the fact he had received full satisfaction for all of his injuries. The pleaded theory of full satisfaction and the same theory presented in the motion for summary judgment were consistent. All of this was fully before the court in the pleadings and admissions on file which the court is authorized to consider under a motion for summary judgment. Rule 74.04. The theory presented in the motion was pleaded and was, therefore, properly before the court.
Rogers next makes the point the granting of the motion was erroneous as a matter of law. In this point Rogers makes some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grand Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 80-0587CV-W-0
...observed, prevented a party from introducing extrinsic proof of intent. See, e.g., Lugena v. Hanna, 420 S.W.2d 335, 340 (Mo. 1967); Rogers v. Piper, supra. Based upon a thorough examination of Missouri cases, the court granted summary judgment for the manufacturer in Swope, holding that eve......
-
Swope v. General Motors Corp.
...A more recent Missouri Court of Appeals decision further reinforces this doctrine as interpreted by Missouri courts. In Rogers v. Piper, 543 S.W.2d 261 (Mo.App.1976) the Court was presented with the issue of whether a plaintiff, injured by a negligent driver in an automobile collision, havi......
-
State ex rel. Normandy Orthopedics, Inc. v. Crandall
...plaintiff did not consider the settlement as complete satisfaction for her injures, . . ." 421 S.W.2d at 3. Similarly, in Rogers v. Piper, 543 S.W.2d 261 (Mo.App.1976), cited by the Court of Appeals' opinion in the case at bar, the release stated: "RELEASE AND FOREVER DISCHARGE Jack T. Lemm......
-
Greenstreet v. Rupert
...full satisfaction for injuries or damages only once. See Hanson v. Norton, 340 Mo. 1012, 103 S.W.2d 1, 6 (1937); Rogers v. Piper, 543 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Mo.App.1976). There is nothing in the record nor in the release executed by Webber to show that Webber did not consider the settlement to be......