Sims v. Arvin Industries, WD

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtBefore KENNEDY; KENNEDY
CitationSims v. Arvin Industries, 770 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. App. 1989)
Decision Date25 April 1989
Docket NumberNo. WD,WD
PartiesAlfreda SIMS, et al., Appellants, v. ARVIN INDUSTRIES, et al., Respondents. 40957.

Stanley L. Wiles, Kansas City, for appellants.

John F. Murphy, Robert T. Adams, Kansas City, for Arvin Industries.

Before KENNEDY, C.J., and LOWENSTEIN and GAITAN, JJ.

KENNEDY, Chief Judge.

Alfreda Sims as plaintiff ad litem brought suit against Arvin Industries and 39th Street Home Center for the wrongful death of her five-year old grandson, Alphonso Sims, in a fire on November 4, 1984. The fire, according to the petition, was caused by a portable heater manufactured by Arvin Industries and sold by 39th Street Home Center.

The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the plaintiff ad litem was not entitled to bring the wrongful death action under Section 537.080, RSMo 1986, since decedent was survived by parents who under the statute were entitled to bring any wrongful death action for the child's death. The plaintiff ad litem has appealed.

The trial court was correct in his ruling and the judgment of dismissal is affirmed. The trial court's appointment of a plaintiff ad litem was not conclusive, as the plaintiff ad litem claims it was, on the question of the proper party to bring the action. Such appointment does not stand in the way of a later dismissal of the petition upon a determination that the plaintiff ad litem is not so entitled.

The parents of a decedent are in the first of three descending categories of persons who are entitled to bring a wrongful death action. Section 537.080(1), RSMo 1986. A plaintiff ad litem is in the third category. Section 537.080(3), RSMo 1986. A person in any authorized category may bring a wrongful death suit only if there are no persons in a prior category "entitled to bring the action". Section 537.080, RSMo 1986; Schiles v. Gaertner, 659 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Mo.App.1983); Malone By and Through Alexander v. Jackson, 652 S.W.2d 170, 171-72 (Mo.App.1983); State ex rel. Research Medical Center v. Peters, 631 S.W.2d 938, 946 (Mo.App.1982).

Plaintiff ad litem claims that the parents were not "entitled to bring the action" because the child had been removed from their custody by the juvenile court because of the parents' neglect and placed in the custody of the grandmother. Even delinquent parents, however, are entitled to bring a wrongful death action...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
  • State ex rel. Griffin v. Belt
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 1997
    ... ... death suit only if there are no persons in a prior category 'entitled to bring the action.' " Sims v. Arvin Industries, ... 770 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Mo.App.1989) (emphasis added). See also Schiles v ... ...
  • Johnson ex rel. Wilken v. Jones
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 2002
    ...may bring a wrongful death suit only if there are no persons in a prior category entitled to bring the action." Sims v. Arvin Indus., 770 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Mo.App. 1989). Therefore, this court must first determine whether there are class one beneficiaries who are entitled to sue in this case......
3 books & journal articles
  • Section 4.4 Class 3 Beneficiaries (Plaintiff Ad Litem)
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Settling Cases Deskbook Chapter 4 Wrongful Death
    • Invalid date
    ...death action if any person in either of the two other classes is alive and capable of bringing the action. See Sims v. Arvin Indus., 770 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989).Strict compliance with the plaintiff ad litem provisions is absolutely necessary; otherwise, a settlement or judgment......
  • Section 14.13 Suit or Settlement by Plaintiff Ad Litem
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Tort Law Deskbook Chapter 14 Wrongful Death
    • Invalid date
    ...were in the first of three descending categories of persons who were entitled to bring a wrongful death action. Sims v. Arvin Indus., 770 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989). The laws of descent determine sharing and distribution of proceeds. Exceptions may be made to a distribution according t......
  • Section 4 Parties Entitled to Maintain an Action
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Damages Deskbook Chapter 18 Wrongful Death
    • Invalid date
    ...1989) (allowing the decedent’s children to intervene in a wrongful death action brought by the decedent’s widow) Sims v. Arvin Indus., 770 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989) (trial court’s appointment of plaintiff ad litem (decedent’s grandmother) was not conclusive on the question of the prop......