Court Opinion

ID: 9675554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:57:15.333833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:35.516564
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing or Transfer to Supreme Court
RUDDY, Presiding Judge.
In respondents’ (plaintiffs’) motion for rehearing they have raised two contentions that we think should be answered. In the first of these contentions they allege that our opinion assumes that Dennis McFarland was actually attempting to swim across the lake. They further allege that it is not known what the deceased was attempting to do and for this reason it should not have been assumed that Dennis McFarland was attempting to swim across the lake.
In our opinion we pointed out that plaintiffs’ petition alleged that their minor son attempted to follow some of his companions who had swum across the lake. More specifically the allegation in the petition is as follows:
“ * * * that shortly after entering said lake, the companions of said Dennis McFarland swam across said lake at a point where said lake was approximately 250 to 300 yards wide; that said Dennis McFarland thereupon attempted to follow his said companions and that as a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of the defendants, said Dennis McFarland did drown.” (Emphasis added.)
It is obvious from this allegation that plaintiffs’ theory of recovery was based on the fact that Dennis McFarland was attempting to swim across the lake.
Respondents (plaintiffs) in their statement, brief and argument, when stating the substance of the pleadings, said that plaintiffs’ petition alleged, “ * * * the deceased changed into swimming clothes and entered the water and shortly thereafter drowned while attempting to swim across the lake.”
The evidence shows that the case was tried in the Circuit Court on the theory that Dennis McFarland was attempting to swim across the lake when he drowned.
The briefs filed were predicated on the same theory. Proof of this is co-ntainéd in the following statements taken from Respondents’ Brief:
(Page 14) “Before Dennis drowned that day, at least seven (7) boys had; swum across the lake.. Two (2) had been across before the, group with Den-; nis started (Tr. 160). It was just a question of who would be the first to get into trouble in this lake.”
(Page 23) “On the day in question, the deceased was with boys all older than himself. * * * It was natural for him to think that he could swim the lake if he saw the other boys swim *104across. A statement that he might have made 10 minutes before would not properly reflect the boy’s thoughts after he saw the other boys swim across. Consider also the fact that the lake was longer than it looked. * * * Had Dennis known how - far it was across the lake, he would be alive today. It is probable that had the other hoys been warned and advised of the distance, they, too, would not have ventured across and Dennis would not have changed his mind. But they were not warned and Dennis did change his mind and as a result drowned. The decision that Dennis McFarland made to swim across, after seeing the other boys swim across the lake, was an error in judgment made by a child, * * (Emphasis added.)
These statements contained in respondents’ (plaintiffs’) brief clearly demonstrate that they assumed Dennis was attempting to swim across the lake. The whole case, from the filing of the petition in the trial court to the briefs filed on appeal, was based on the theory that Dennis met his death while attempting to swim across the lake. This new contention, wholly inconsistent with respondents’ theory throughout the trial and in this court and appearing for the first time in respondents’ motion for rehearing, must be ruled against them.
The second contention of respondents is that Dennis could not be guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law because plaintiffs were guilty of willful and wanton negligence in failing to maintain any type of life-saving equipment or personnel on and at the lake. This charge that defendants are guilty of willful and wanton negligence is made for the first time in respondents’ motion for rehearing. No allegation of willful and wanton negligence is contained in the petition. No such issue was submitted to the jury in the Circuit Court and no such contention was made by respondents in their brief in this court.
Respondents rely on the case of Stewart v. Farley, 364 Mo. 921, 269 S.W.2d 896, wherein the Supreme Court holds that where a defendant’s willful misconduct has been established, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is no defense to the action. In the aforesaid case the theory of plaintiff’s action as set forth in the instructions was that defendant Farley was guilty of willful and wanton misconduct in the operation of his automobile. Thus, we see, that the issue of defendant’s willful and wanton negligence was presented in the trial court. In the instant case no such issue was pleaded or submitted to the jury and was not urged by respondents in their briefs in this court. The aforesaid statement is not to hold that we think the specifications of negligence alleged in the petition and submitted to the jury in the trial court were such from which the jury could find willful and wanton negligence. We do not rule that question. We do rule that the issue was not presented in the petition, in the instructions to the jury in the trial court, or in the briefs in this court. Its appearance in the Motion for Rehearing comes too late. This contention must be ruled against respondents.
The motion for rehearing or transfer to the Supreme Court is overruled in all respects.
MATTHES and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.