Steinmetz v. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n, 32907
| Decision Date | 09 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 32907,32907 |
| Citation | 645 S.W.2d 36 |
| Parties | Joyce STEINMETZ, Appellant-Respondent, v. MISSOURI HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
H. George Lafferty, Jr., Kansas City, for appellant-respondent.
Bruce Ring, Chief Counsel, Earl H. Schrader, Jr., Nancy M. Mellard, Kansas City, for appellant-respondent.
Before NUGENT, P.J., and TURNAGE and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.
Joyce Steinmetz filed suit against a number of defendants seeking damages for the wrongful death of her husband, Martin. Martin was killed when the car he was driving was crushed by a load of beef carcasses which fell from an overturned truck. The truck had been traveling on Interstate 35, in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, and the accident occurred on an overpass where Interstate 35 crosses Interstate 70, on which Martin had been traveling.
Steinmetz appeals from an order requiring her to reduce the prayer of her petition to $100,000, and from a summary judgment entered in favor of the Commission. The Commission cross-appeals from two orders overruling its previous motions for summary judgment. The summary judgment in favor of the Commission is reversed, and all other appeals are dismissed.
While the suit was pending against all defendants, the Commission filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that it was immune from liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity as set forth in § 537.600 and § 537.610 RSMo 1978. The court overruled that motion. Steinmetz subsequently settled with all defendants except the Commission for the aggregate sum of $808,000. The Commission then filed a second motion for summary judgment, again alleging its immunity under the statutes cited above. This motion was also denied.
The Commission next filed a motion to require Steinmetz to reduce the prayer in her petition to $100,000. The Commission's theory on this motion was that § 537.610 established that $100,000 was the maximum amount that a political subdivision of the state could be held liable to any one person for in a claim arising out of a single accident or occurrence. The court sustained this motion, and ordered that the prayer for recovery be reduced to $100,000.
After this motion was sustained, the Commission filed a third motion for summary judgment, this time on the ground that Steinmetz's settlement precluded a further recovery. The Commission argued that since she had already received $808,000, she was not as a matter of law entitled to recover any further amount. The court sustained this motion, and entered judgment in favor of the Commission.
Although none of the parties have raised any question concerning the finality of any of the judgments appealed from, it is the duty of this court to examine the finality of such a judgment sua sponte, in that this court only has jurisdiction to hear appeals from a final judgment. Gaa v. Edwards, 626 S.W.2d 685, 686 (Mo.App.1981). It is well established that in order to constitute a final judgment, a judgment must dispose of all issues and all parties, with certain exceptions not applicable in this case. Bolin v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Co., 549 S.W.2d 886, 889 (Mo. banc 1977).
Viewed from this perspective, the order requiring Steinmetz to amend her prayer to seek a maximum of $100,000 was clearly not a final appealable judgment. It did not finally dispose of any issue or party and was thus a purely interlocutory order. Accordingly, the appeal from the order requiring Steinmetz to amend her petition is dismissed.
The orders denying the Commission's two motions for summary judgment on the theory that the Commission was immune from liability also fail to constitute final appealable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Hartman v. Casteel
...678 S.W.2d 816 ... STATE of Missouri, ex rel. Lawrence Leslie HARTMAN, Relator, ... Steinmetz v. Missouri Hwy. & Transp. Com'n, 645 S.W.2d 36 ... ...
-
Payne v. Payne
...jurisdiction. Mainstreet Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Berkeley, 656 S.W.2d 284, 285 (Mo.App.1983); Steinmetz v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, 645 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Mo.App.1982); First National Bank & Trust Co. of Joplin v. Pittock, 572 S.W.2d 182, 183 (Mo.App.1978). Under some ......
-
Kootman v. Kaye
...court's review of a summary judgment is limited to the theory presented to the trial court, Steinmetz v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, 645 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Mo.App.W.D.1982), and therefore these points are denied. Third, that the trial court erred in granting landlord's motio......
-
Ritter v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...this court must determine if it has jurisdiction, whether or not this question is raised by the parties. Steinmetz v. Missouri Hwy. & Transp. Com'n, 645 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.App.1982). In granting leave to file a late Notice of Appeal, this court specifically ordered that the question of whether o......