Wilson v. Hungate, 53392
| Decision Date | 09 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 53392,53392,2 |
| Citation | 434 S.W.2d 580 |
| Parties | Richard WILSON, Respondent, v. Carroll HUNGATE, M.D., Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John G. Crighton, Ben W. Morse, Crighton & Morse, North Kansas City, for respondent.
John M. Kilroy, Robert R. Raymond, John R. Caslavka, Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, Kansas City, for appellant.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
By this action the plaintiff, Richard Wilson, seeks to recover $400,000.00 damages for personal injuries. The defendants are Ford Motor Company and Dr. Carroll Hungate and in brief, as appears from the pleadings and interrogatories, these are the alleged circumstances: On July 25, 1964, Wilson was working on Ford's assembly line at Claycomo and arising out of and in the course of his employment received an accidental injury for which he made claim and was paid workmen's compensation. Dr. Hungate was the plant physician for Ford Motor Company and was at least one of the doctors treating Wilson for his plant-sustained injuries. Subsequently, December 1, 1964, allegedly by reason of 'having blackouts' as a result of his prior accident and injury when a motor was dropped on his head, Wilson went to the first-aid dispensary and Dr. Hungate prescribed and gave him certain yellow pills. Wilson went to his home in Excelsior Springs and in the course of the trip took two of Dr. Hungate's pills. Thereafter, about midnight, he alleges as he drove his automobile in a westerly direction on a township line road 'he became totally unconscious,' lost control of his motor vehicle and was again injured whne his automobile left the road and struck a 'tree stump.' For this latter injury Wilson also made claim for compensation against his employer Ford Motor Company stating that he was being treated by Dr. Hungate, 'company doctor,' for his July 25, 1964, accident when thereafter the doctor prescribed an 'extra strong narcotic' causing him to suffer a seizure and the loss of control of his automobile. Upon a hearing of the second claim for compensation a referee found 'that said accident did not arise out of or in the scope and course of his employment' and accordingly compensation was denied on October 27, 1966, and there was no appeal from that award.
Thereafter, on November 2, 1966, this action was instituted. Ford Motor Company, setting forth the facts concerning the claims for compensation alleged that Wilson's injuries and damages were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the compensation commission and upon the pleadings and exhibits moved for summary judgment. The court, without stating reasons or making a finding of facts, sustained Ford's motion for summary judgment and as to Ford dismissed plaintiff's action. Dr. Hungate also stating the facts of the two compensation claims moved for summary judgment alleging that as to him plaintiff's cause of action for negligent treatment was likewise res adjudicata, because, the doctor asserts, the referee's finding necessarily found that Wilson's last accident did not arise out of and in the scope of his employment and particularly 'that there was no proximate cause between the treatment given plaintiff by Carroll Hungate, M.D., and plaintiff's accident of December 1, 1964.' The trial court overruled Dr. Hungate's motion for summary judgment and he has appealed from that order.
Upon the doctor's appeal it is here argued that the findings of the compensation referee 'together with the finding of the trial court in sustaining the motion of Ford Motor Company for summary judgment that there was no causal relationship between the alleged treatment given respondent by appellant and respondent's accident of December 1, 1964' constituted an adjudication upon those facts upon the merits of the action barring plaintiff's right of recovery. In this connection it is pointed out that Wilson did not appeal from either the ruling of the referee or the court's order sustaining Ford's motion for summary judgment and in 'the interest of manifest justice and to avoid plain error' it is contended that this court should direct the entry of a summary judgment and thereby terminate this litigation.
It is neither necessary nor desirable to enter upon a full consideration of any cause of action Wilson may have against Dr. Hungate, it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. Paul
...for summary judgment is an interlocutory order and is not a proper point on appeal. Thus, it need not be addressed. Wilson v. Hungate, 434 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Mo. 1968). But even though the ruling in question might normally be considered interlocutory, if the appeal is otherwise properly befor......
-
State v. Thompson, 62446
...Country Club v. Davis, 384 S.W.2d 611 (Mo.1964). Appeal lies only from a final judgment. Section 512.020, RSMo 1978; Wilson v. Hungate, 434 S.W.2d 580 (Mo.1968). The record reveals, however, a lack of foundation for respondent's claim. An Order of Rulemaking stating that pentazocine was con......
-
State ex rel. Blond v. Stubbs
...Mo. 217, 256 S.W. 239; Schumacher v. Leslie, en Banc, 360 Mo. 1238, 232 S.W.2d 913; Boehmer v. Boggiano, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 103; Wilson v. Hungate, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 580; Persten v. Chesney, Mo.App., 212 S.W.2d 469. The Missouri rule stated in the foregoing cases is in accord with the law genera......
-
Atlas Sec. Services, Inc. v. Git-N-Go, Inc.
...pleadings in this case was not a final appealable judgment. Kilgore v. Kilgore, 666 S.W.2d 923, 928 (Mo.App.1984). Cf. Wilson v. Hungate, 434 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Mo.1968). Atlas' first claim of error is In its second claim of trial court error, Atlas alleges that the trial court erred by submi......