Scott v. Thornton, 56250
| Decision Date | 11 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 56250,56250,2 |
| Citation | 484 S.W.2d 312 |
| Parties | Earl B. SCOTT, Appellant, v. Robert Q. THORNTON, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Mogab, Hughes & Green, Richard L. Hughes, St. Louis, for appellant.
Murphy & Kortenhof, Edward E. Murphy, Jr., St. Louis, for respondent.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Plaintiff seeks the reversal of the judgment of the trial court sustaining defendant's motion for summary judgment in his action for damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. We reverse. The notice of appeal was filed prior to January 1, 1972, at which time this court had jurisdiction by reason of the amount in dispute. We retain jurisdiction pursuant to Art. V, § 31, par. 4, Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S.
Plaintiff alleged in his petition that while the automobile he was operating was stopped, defendant operated his automobile across the centerline and into a head-on collision with plaintiff's automobile. In his answer defendant admitted the operation of his automobile and that a collision occurred, but he denied generally all other allegations of plaintiff's petition, and he pleaded affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and release.
Based on the pleadings, answers by plaintiff to defendant's interrogatories, and depositions, the following are the material facts upon which the trial court entered its judgment.
On December 21, 1968, plaintiff was operating a station wagon belonging to Vivian Importing Company and was delivering Christmas packages. While standing still the station wagon was struck by an automobile operated by defendant. Plaintiff received workmen's compensation payments of $46 a week for approximately twelve weeks. On or near January 15, 1969, a representative of State Farm Insurance Company, a Mr. Baskett, called on plaintiff at his home and stated that he was representing defendant, and took a statement from plaintiff as to how the accident happened. Plaintiff did not again see Mr. Baskett, but at one time he called at the office of the State Farm Insurance Company and was told that Mr. Baskett was not there.
About March 18, 1969, plaintiff received through the mail a State Farm Insurance check signed by Mr. Baskett in the amount of $1,500. There was no accompanying letter. On the front of the check there appeared the statement, On the back of the check was the statement, 'All payees must endorse this draft,' and beneath this in smaller printing appeared the following: Plaintiff endorsed the check and cashed it.
According to Mr. Baskett, as related in his deposition, he had not checked plaintiff's medical records, had not had him examined by a doctor, and had not attempted to verify the nature and extent of the injuries related to him by plaintiff, but he had seen plaintiff and knew he had received some injuries. He had talked to plaintiff once in person and had talked to him on the telephone several times. He stated that he asked plaintiff what 'he had in mind' as to settlement, and that after a discussion 'he mentioned a figure of two thousand dollars,' and that he made plaintiff an 'offer of fifteen hundred dollars, and he accepted it.'
Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he did not know why he received the $1,500 check, but he thought it pertained to workmen's compensation, and because he had not been working he thought he was being paid because he was hurt. He knew the check was from State Farm Insurance. He read the printed matter on the back of the check but not on its face. At the time the check was received he had not retained an attorney and had not filed a workmen's compensation claim, although he was receiving weekly compensation checks. He did not know that he had two claims, one for compensation, and one against defendant. In February 1970, plaintiff's attorney tendered a return of the $1,500 to State Farm Insurance, but it was refused. Plaintiff's compensation claim was settled for $3,796, and after credit was taken for the $1,500 he had received, a net payment of $2,296 was paid to plaintiff.
It was the practice for State Farm Insurance to obtain a written release on what was referred to as a 'blue form.' Mr. Baskett testified that he sent the form to plaintiff and asked that it be signed and returned to him in an enclosed envelope. Plaintiff testified that he did not see the form and had not signed it. Mr. Baskett could not state that he received it back, and a copy signed by plaintiff could not be produced at the trial.
Summary judgment is authorized where, but only where, the 'pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zafft v. Eli Lilly & Co.
...judgment as a matter of law. This Court reviews the record on summary judgment in the light most favorable to appellants. Scott v. Thornton, 484 S.W.2d 312 (Mo.1972). Appellants sought recovery on theories of breach of implied warranty; negligence per se in failing to comply with the federa......
-
Howard Const. Co. v. Jeff-Cole Quarries, Inc.
... ... Sipes, 447 S.W.2d 558, 561 (Mo.1969); Scott v. Thornton, 484 S.W.2d 312, 314 (Mo.1972); Rule 74.04, and accord such party the benefit of every ... ...
-
B & D Inv. Co., Inc. v. Schneider
...to conform to the proof) as revealed by the 'depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits ....' " Scott v. Thornton, 484 S.W.2d 312, 314 (Mo.1972). "An appellant may not, as a general rule, overturn a summary judgment by raising in the appellate court an issue of fact th......
-
Kroh Bros. Development Co. v. State Line Eighty-Nine, Inc.
...the appellate court must view the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was rendered. Scott v. Thornton, 484 S.W.2d 312 (Mo.1972). In the exposition of these principles, we cannot ignore that an important, fundamental purpose of the summary judgment proce......