Court Opinion

ID: 9646425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:59:49.202878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:45.683700
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for at least two reasons:
(1) In my view, this case does not demonstrate appropriate circumstances for judicial abrogation of the “impact rule”. “The issue seems suited for legislative action.” Epple v. Western Auto Supply Co., 557 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Mo. banc 1977); and
(2) The view of the majority is that “logic and practicality” argue for abandonment of the “impact rule” in favor of a “medically significant” rule. The “logic and practicality” of such action elude me. What does “medically significant” mean in a courtroom?