Snow v. Fikes, KCD

Decision Date28 August 1978
Docket NumberNo. KCD,KCD
Citation570 S.W.2d 815
PartiesStevens Edward SNOW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael FIKES, Toyota Motor Co., Ltd., Toyota Motor Sales, U. S. A., Inc., and Toyota Motor Distributors, Inc., Defendants-Respondents. 29387.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Sloan R. Wilson, McMullin, Wilson & Schwarz, Kansas City, for plaintiff-appellant.

J. D. James, Larry J. Tyrl, James, Odegard & Millert, Kansas City, for defendants-respondents.

Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and DIXON and TURNAGE, JJ.

DIXON, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in a tort action. The theory of plaintiff's claim against Toyota was that a radio antenna was defective in design; and, as against the individual defendant, the claim was based on negligence. Because this appeal must be dismissed for failure to comply with the rules, no further statement of facts is required.

Plaintiff was late in filing the transcript, and the appeal was dismissed. Pursuant to the plaintiff's motion, the appeal was reinstated and, after three successive continuances of the due date for filing of the transcript, a transcript was finally filed out of time and beyond the final due date for filing.

Because this action is to be dismissed for violation of the rules, the two points on appeal are set out in full.

"POINT I

Where a Missouri approved verdict directing instruction is inadequate or unclear, and a jury is confused thereby, and is in need of enlighTmEnt, and so indicates by a written message to the court, it is error for the trial court to refuse to properly enlighten the jury, either orally or in writing, and to tell the jury only to be guided by instructions already given.

POINT II

The court erred in failing and refusing to let expert witness Forman testify as to how the manufacturer and designer could have made the product (exhibit 1) reasonably safe."

Explanatory of the first point of error, an examination of the transcript reveals that this point is directed to the instruction given by the Plaintiff in this case, although the instruction is not set out in the plaintiff's brief as required by Rule 84.04(e). Plaintiff's first point, in any event, is nothing more than an abstract statement of the law and does not state what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed. Middleton v. Meramec Mining Co., 545 S.W.2d 679 (Mo.App.1976). Examination of the motion for a new trial filed in this case reveals no comparable claim of error. What actually occurred as that the jury inquired as to the meaning of " defective" in MAI 25.04. The trial court, in writing, instructed the jury to be guided by all the instructions. About 45 minutes later, while the jury was still...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Willard v. Doyle, 11816
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 1981
    ...enlighten as to why such failure was error. Dowlin v. Western Cas. & Sur. Co., 592 S.W.2d 486, 487(2) (Mo.App.1979); Snow v. Fikes, 570 S.W.2d 815, 816(2) (Mo.App.1978). Claiming, as done in point III, that we should make our own finding of facts and conclusions of law, suggests no erroneou......
  • Dowlin v. Western Cas. and Sur. Co., KCD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1979
    ...that the court's action was erroneous neither satisfies the mandate of the rule nor preserves anything for review. Snow v. Fikes, 570 S.W.2d 815 (Mo.App.1978). In abstract manner, Western claims it was error for the trial court to have found (1) that Dowlin suffered loss of stock and movabl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT