Title: Clemons v. Becker

State: missouri

Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court

Document:

283 S.W.2d 449 (1955)
James Stanley CLEMONS, Appellant,
v.
Clifford Lee BECKER, Respondent.
No. 44811.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
November 14, 1955.
Robert A. McIlrath, Flat River, for appellant.
Dearing & Richeson, Will B. Dearing, Hillsboro, for respondent.
WESTHUES, Judge.
James Stanley Clemons filed suit against Clifford Lee Becker to recover $15,000 in damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of a collision of two automobiles. Plaintiff Clemons charged that Becker's negligence caused the collision and plaintiff's injuries. A trial resulted in a jury verdict for the defendant and from the judgment, plaintiff appealed.
*450 The evidence as to the collision supports the following statement of the case: On the morning of April 1, 1954, plaintiff Clemons and his brother Robert were going to work in a car driven by Robert. While they were going in an easterly direction over Loughborough Road about five miles from Elvins, Missouri, their car, a Plymouth, collided head on with a Buick car being driven westwardly by the defendant Becker. The collision occurred about midway of a curve in the road. The roadway was hard surfaced with "black top" 18 feet wide. There was no center line marked on the roadway. Plaintiff and his brother Robert testified at the trial. They were both injured and it may be inferred from evidence that neither remembered anything of importance concerning the collision or how it occurred. To illustrate, we quote from Robert's evidence:
Plaintiff gave the following evidence as to what he remembered of the occurrence in question:
The defendant Clifford Lee Becker was also injured but he testified that he remembered what occurred up to the time immediately before the collision. Note his testimony:
A State Highway Patrolman testified that when he arrived on the scene (about 6:50 a. m.) he found the two cars locked together head on about the center of the roadway; that the right front wheel of defendant's Buick was 5 feet south of the north edge of the black top roadway, while the right rear wheel was 3 feet 6 inches south thereof; that the left front wheel of the car (Plymouth) in which plaintiff was riding was 7 feet south of the north edge of the black top and the left rear wheel was 8 feet south of the north edge.
The above narration contains substantially all of the evidence submitted to the trial jury upon which to base a verdict. As above noted, the jury found for the defendant.
Plaintiff's "Points and Authorities" are:
"I. There is insufficient evidence to support the verdict. (citing authorities)
The first point may be disposed of readily. A verdict for a defendant on a plaintiff's claim needs no supporting evidence. A pleader seeking affirmative relief must produce evidence to support his claim. The party denying liability need not introduce any evidence to support a verdict. That rule of law needs no citation of authority. Plaintiff in his argument in the brief says, "If, as defendant states, the Plymouth automobile was directly in front of him when he saw the parking lights on the car, then it is apparent that he, as well as the Plymouth automobile, were both in the center of the highway. It would be impossible for the defendant to drive both in the center of the highway and within a foot and a half of the right hand curb, and therefore his statement cannot be true and is contrary to the physical facts." Plaintiff's argument in substance is that the physical facts disprove defendant's evidence and therefore plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. We hold that the evidence presented a question of fact for a jury to determine. We cannot say as a matter of law that the position of the cars after the collision conclusively disproved defendant's evidence. Especially is this true since no witness to the collision remembered precisely the position of the cars at the time of the impact. Had the trial court sustained plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, we would be confronted with a different situation. Reichmuth v. Adler, 348 Mo. 812, 155 S.W.2d 181, loc. cit. 182(1, 2).
*452 The other two points do not present any question for review since they fail to comply with our Rule 1.08, 42 V.A.M.S. Our Rule 1.08(a) (3) requires an appellant in his brief to state "The points relied on, which shall show what actions or rulings of the Court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous, * * *." It is apparent that plaintiff failed to comply with this rule. It is not sufficient to state in the argument in the brief the points relied on or to assign errors alleged to have been committed by the trial court. That must be done under "Points and Authorities." We would be justified in not considering the case further. However, in the interest of justice, we have decided to consider plaintiff's printed argument to ascertain his complaints. In this argument plaintiff contends the defendant did not plead that the collision in this case was the result of the negligence of a third party and, therefore, the defendant was not entitled to such a defense. In the case of Janssens v. Thompson, 360 Mo. 351, 228 S.W.2d 743, loc. cit. 750(7, 8), we ruled this question against plaintiff's contention. It was there held that a defendant under a general denial was entitled to show that he was not negligent and that the injury of plaintiff was caused solely through the negligence of another.
In the argument plaintiff says further that defendant's instruction omitted the element that the negligence of Robert O. Clemons, driver of the car wherein plaintiff was riding, could not be imputed to the plaintiff. This point has also been decided against plaintiff's contention. See Stanich v. Western Union Tel. Co., 348 Mo. 188, 153 S.W.2d 54, loc. cit. 58, 59(4); Shields v. Keller, 348 Mo. 326, 153 S.W.2d 60, loc. cit. 64(6); and Mendenhall v. Meyer, 347 Mo. 881, 149 S.W.2d 366. Those cases ruled that a defendant need not include the element of imputed negligence in a sole cause instruction.
We find no merit in plaintiff's contentions. The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.