State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, No. 46853
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | KAROHL; PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and DOWD |
| Citation | 652 S.W.2d 237 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. Mary Lou HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Relator, v. The Honorable Donald DALTON, Judge of the Circuit Court For the County of St. Charles, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 46853 |
| Decision Date | 26 April 1983 |
Page 237
v.
The Honorable Donald DALTON, Judge of the Circuit Court For
the County of St. Charles, Defendant-Respondent.
Eastern District,
Division Five.
Page 238
Thomas M. Kendrick, St. Louis, for plaintiff-relator.
Wayne Schoeneberg, St. Charles, for James A. Mussmann.
KAROHL, Judge.
This is an original proceeding in prohibition to prohibit the respondent circuit judge from proceeding in the cause entitled, James A. Mussmann, and George Mussmann and Jean Mussmann v. Mary Lou Hamilton, defendant, and relator, Cause No. CV182-351CC, now pending in the circuit court of St. Charles County, Missouri.
The underlying suit was filed on February 4, 1982. Essentially the same suit was filed in St. Charles County, Missouri on November 10, 1971, stating a cause of action on behalf of James A. Mussmann, a minor, by his father and next friend, against Mary Lou Hamilton, his school teacher, Ivan Taylor, a school principal, and Fort Zumwalt School District. The complaint alleged serious personal injuries to James' right foot and toes resulting from the collapse of a piano on September 21, 1970. The original petition asked damages from relator Mary Lou Hamilton for her negligence in ordering James to move a piano she should have known was dangerous because of a defect in the rear wheel in that she failed to inspect and discover the defect and to repair or remove the piano from the classroom. Each defendant in the first action filed separate motions to dismiss alleging: (1) that the petition failed to state a cause of action; (2) that the defendants were protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity; and, (3) the doctrine of in loco parentis. The trial court sustained these motions on July 12, 1972, without indicating the grounds for dismissal. The case was dismissed with prejudice and was not appealed.
The present action, by James, now an adult, relates to the same incident, for the same injuries and charges defendant Mary Lou Hamilton with the same acts of negligence. In Count II, James' parents are co-plaintiffs, asking damages for medical bills, loss of services and their pain and suffering with respect to their son's injuries. Defendant Mary Lou Hamilton filed an answer and pleaded affirmative defenses of res judicata as to both counts and the statute of limitations as to the parents' claim.
Relator Mary Lou Hamilton filed a motion for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, No. 49752
...litigation. State ex rel. New Liberty Hospital District v. Pratt, 687 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. banc 1985); State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, 652 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1983) [1-5]. The issue before the trial court and us is solely a matter of law. There is no dispute regarding the facts which present th......
-
State ex rel. J.E. Dunn Const. Co. v. Fairness in Const. Bd. of City of Kansas City, Nos. WD
...exercise jurisdiction in a matter barred by res judicata may be restrained by writ of prohibition. See State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, 652 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Mo.App.1983). The appellants claim that res judicata does not apply because: (1) the federal action was not a decision on the merits,......
-
State ex rel. New Liberty Hosp. Dist. v. Pratt, No. 66481
...670 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Mo.banc 1984); State ex rel. T.J.H. v. Bills, 504 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Mo.banc 1974); State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, 652 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Mo.App.1983); State ex rel. Sisters of St. Mary v. Campbell, 511 S.W.2d 141, 148-49 (Mo.App.1974). The preliminary rule in prohibition ......
-
Eugene Alper Const. Co., Inc. v. Joe Garavelli's of West Port, Inc., No. 46425
...and shareholder of the corporation. See Abeles v. Wurdack, 285 S.W.2d 544 (Mo.1955); Compare with State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, 652 S.W.2d 237 Ann Rose was not even a party to the first proceeding. Thus, res judicata is not applicable as to her. See Griffith v. Hammer, 595 S.W.2d 292, 2......
-
State ex rel. O'Blennis v. Adolf, No. 49752
...litigation. State ex rel. New Liberty Hospital District v. Pratt, 687 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. banc 1985); State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, 652 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1983) [1-5]. The issue before the trial court and us is solely a matter of law. There is no dispute regarding the facts which present th......
-
State ex rel. J.E. Dunn Const. Co. v. Fairness in Const. Bd. of City of Kansas City, Nos. WD
...exercise jurisdiction in a matter barred by res judicata may be restrained by writ of prohibition. See State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, 652 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Mo.App.1983). The appellants claim that res judicata does not apply because: (1) the federal action was not a decision on the merits,......
-
State ex rel. New Liberty Hosp. Dist. v. Pratt, No. 66481
...670 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Mo.banc 1984); State ex rel. T.J.H. v. Bills, 504 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Mo.banc 1974); State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, 652 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Mo.App.1983); State ex rel. Sisters of St. Mary v. Campbell, 511 S.W.2d 141, 148-49 (Mo.App.1974). The preliminary rule in prohibition ......
-
Eugene Alper Const. Co., Inc. v. Joe Garavelli's of West Port, Inc., No. 46425
...and shareholder of the corporation. See Abeles v. Wurdack, 285 S.W.2d 544 (Mo.1955); Compare with State ex rel. Hamilton v. Dalton, 652 S.W.2d 237 Ann Rose was not even a party to the first proceeding. Thus, res judicata is not applicable as to her. See Griffith v. Hammer, 595 S.W.2d 292, 2......