Romines v. Donald Maggi, Inc.
Decision Date | 11 June 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 12492,12492 |
Citation | 636 S.W.2d 130 |
Parties | Glenn H. ROMINES, Jr. and Dorothy Kathleen Romines, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DONALD MAGGI, INC., Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Harold F. Glass, Schroff, Glass & Newberry, P. C., Springfield, Hubert E. Lay, Houston, for plaintiffs-appellants.
John A. Clayton, Routh, Thomas & Birdsong, P. C., Rolla, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiffs sued defendant for property damage allegedly resulting from blasting operation conducted by defendant near property owned by plaintiffs. Trial was to a jury and plaintiffs contend the verdict form was incomplete and the court erroneously received the verdict and entered judgment for defendant. We affirm.
The parties have filed an agreed statement as to the record on appeal, pursuant to Rule 81.13, V.A.M.R. The pertinent part of the record is as follows:
THEREUPON, counsel approach the Bench, at which time proceedings were had out of the hearing of the record.
THEREAFTER, proceedings continued in open court as follows:
THE COURT: Mr. Bales, would you please just sign this as the foreman.
(The Foreman approaches the Bench and signs the verdict form.)
Plaintiffs aver the verdict form was not completed in that the name of the party in whose favor the verdict was returned was not filled in on the designated blank as required by MAI 36.01 and MAI 2.04 and not signed by all of the jurors who agreed to it as required by said instructions. They also take the position that the court's request to Mr. Bales to sign the form as foreman constituted an impermissible oral instruction.
We first note that plaintiffs voiced no objection to the procedure followed by the trial court in receiving and entering the verdict. In Cobb v. Cosby, 416 S.W.2d 222 (Mo.App.1967), the jury's verdict failed to comply with Rule 71.06, V.A.M.R., in that it gave a lump sum verdict for personal injuries and property damage, rather than stating separately the amount allowed for each. Defendant failed to make a timely objection and waited until judgment had been entered upon the verdict and then raised the question of the verdict violating the rule. In holding that the defendant waived any error, the court said at 225-226:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fowler v. Park Corp.
...of instructional error may be preserved either by specific objection at trial or in the motion for new trial. Romines v. Donald Maggi, Inc., 636 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Mo.App.1982). Under this Court's own rules, then, defendant's pursuit of its allegation of error in the motion for new trial was ......
-
Elam v. Alcolac, Inc.
...trial court at submission or on the motion for new trial after verdict, and so is not preserved for our review. Romines v. Donald Maggi, Inc., 636 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Mo.App.1982). The point is otherwise without merit. MAI sanctions the 19.01 joint-tort-feasor "directly caused or directly cont......
-
Parker v. Bruner
...allegation was not mentioned in defendant's motion for new trial so it is not before us. Rule 70.03; Rule 84.13; Romines v. Donald Maggi, Inc., 636 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Mo.App.1982). The judgment is affirmed. CROW, P.J., and HOGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur. GREENE, C.J., dissents and files Dissenti......
-
Wright v. Martin
...or in defendant's motion for new trial, so it was not properly preserved for our review. Rule 70.03; Rule 84.13; Romines v. Donald Maggi, Inc., 636 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Mo.App.1982). As we do not see how manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice did or could result from the error claimed, pl......