Court Opinion

ID: 9661679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:46:09.48569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:32.117563
License: Public Domain

*19PRITCHARD, Judge,
dissenting.
The principal opinion purports to hold, in part, that the Ellises made a binding judicial admission by pleading (in their underlying negligence action, and in this declaratory judgment) “that as . Howard Dale Ellis was alighting from said pickup truck, . . . Ronnie Ward carelessly and negligently caused his rifle to discharge and shoot a bullet into . . . [Howard Dale Ellis’s] leg . . . ” This holding ignores what the Ellises actually pleaded in the underlying case in the paragraph (3) following the above partial quote: “At all times mentioned herein, defendant was in complete management and control of the aforesaid rifle, that the occurrence described in Paragraph 2 was such as does not ordinarily happen if those in charge use ordinary care, that defendant possessed superior knowledge or means of information as to the cause of the occurrence, and that defendant was thereby negligent.” The preceding allegation of paragraph 2 further set forth, “On or about December 10, 1972 plaintiff was a passenger in defendant’s pickup truck being operated by defendant when plaintiff and defendant drove to a field in Daviess County, Missouri to hunt coyote.” The allegation of paragraph 3 is one clearly of the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur. The principal opinion goes on, “It is patent from the referenced affirmative allegation that the Ellises take the position that some overt act of Ronnie Ward after the pickup came to a stop caused the rifle to discharge. In short, human conduct wholly independent of the operation or use of the vehicle caused the rifle to discharge. According to their legal-factual theory, the pickup was merely the ‘situs’ or ‘locus’ of the accidental discharge of the rifle and, such being the case, there was no causal connection between the discharge of the rifle and the use of the automobile. Ergo, there was no coverage afforded . ”
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, all that plaintiff has to prove, precisely as here pleaded, to make a prima facie case of negligence thereunder, is that the occurrence resulting in injury was such as does not ordinarily happen if the one in charge uses due care, the instrumentality involved was under the management and control of the defendant, and defendant possesses superior knowledge or means of information as to the cause of the occurrence. Furlong v. Stokes, 427 S.W.2d 513, 517[2, 3] (Mo. 1968); and note the there cited leading case of McCloskey v. Koplar, 329 Mo. 527, 46 S.W.2d 557 (1932), where at page 563[6], the court said, “But in a res ipsa loquitur case, owing to the fact that such accidents ordinarily do not occur without negligence on the part of the defendant, and because the proof is more accessible to the defendant, the plaintiff need only show generally he was injured as a result of some negligence of the defendant, without pleading and proving what particular negligence.” In the case of Empiregas, Inc., of Noel v. Hoover Ball & Bearing Co., 507 S.W.2d 657, 661[8-10] (Mo.1974), the court said, “Plaintiff’s petition is premised on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. In general, the doetrine of res ipsa loquitur has no application to the pleadings, but is an inference aiding the proof * * * See also the discussion of that rule in the there cited case of Carter v. Skelly Oil Co., 363 Mo. 570, 252 S.W.2d 306, 309 (1952). Here, the Ellises pleaded no specific “overt” act of Ronnie Ward which would be a binding admission by them and which would preclude the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to their underlying case. As more fully alluded to below, the pickup truck, as pleaded, was a part and parcel of the charge of res ipsa loquitur negligence, and it is no way pleaded that “the pickup was merely the ‘situs’ or ‘locus’ of the accidental discharge of the rifle,” as held in the principal opinion. As alleged, both the pickup truck and the rifle were under the control and management of Ronnie Ward. Upon this pleading the principal opinion errs in holding that there was a binding admission of “some overt act of Ronnie Ward after the pickup came to a stop caused the rifle to discharge.” As was observed in McCloskey, supra, 46 S.W.2d page 563[6], “in a res ipsa loquitur case, as in any other, the plaintiff starts out bearing both the burden of proof and the burden of *20evidence. By showing for instance, that he was a passenger, the defendant a carrier, a train wreck, and consequent injury to him, he makes a prima facie case, since these facts raise an inference, or, as some authorities say, a presumption or ‘prima facie presumption’, that the accident was occasioned by the defendant’s negligence in some way.”
The principal opinion, although citing Schmidt v. Utilities Ins. Co., 353 Mo. 213, 182 S.W.2d 181 (1944), ignores its language of construction of an almost identical insuring clause as here involved. * * * [A] policy must be liberally construed in favor of the insured so as not to defeat, without a plain necessity, his claim to indemnity, which in making the insurance it was his object to secure; and that, when words are susceptible of two interpretations, that which will sustain insured’s claim must be adopted, since the language employed in the policy is that of the insurer.” 182 S.W.2d 183[1, 2], It was noted that the insurer made no attempt to limit the plain, usual and ordinary meaning of the terms used, and the holding was, under facts showing blocks were unloaded from the truck used, were placed on a public sidewalk and plaintiff tripped on and fell over the blocks, “[I]t may not be said as a matter of law that the negligent acts of the truck drivers (in disposing of the blocks after they had obtained and used them) were entirely disconnected from and disassociated with the ownership, maintenance or use of the trucks.” 182 S.W.2d 184[4],
The principal opinion brushes off the import of, as it states, “A fifth and final category of cases may be fittingly described as involving the accidental discharge of guns inside a vehicle caused by the actual movement or operation of the vehicle.” Of the cases cited in the principal opinion, two bear directly upon the issue, which is, did the alleged negligent act, of discharging a firearm to the injury of plaintiffs, arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the pickup truck? In State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Partridge, 10 Cal.3d 94, 109 Cal.Rptr. 811, 514 P.2d 123 (1973), the question presented in that declaratory judgment action was whether there was coverage under both a homeowner’s insurance policy and an automobile liability policy, or was coverage limited to the automobile policy. The trial court held, and was affirmed on appeal that both policies applied, the homeowner’s policy because the insured had filed a .357 magnum pistol to a hair trigger action, found to be a negligent distinct act; and the other negligent act under the automobile policy was that of driving the vehicle off the paved road onto rough terrain. The facts of the injury were that Partridge and Albertson were hunting jackrabbits from a four-wheel drive Bronco, with plaintiff Neilson sitting between them. Partridge spotted a jackrabbit crossing the road, and in order to keep it within his headlights he drove the vehicle off the paved road and onto the adjacent rough terrain where it hit a bump and the pistol discharged severely injuring Neilson. At the time the pistol discharged, Partridge was either holding it in his lap or resting it on top of the steering wheel pointed at Neilson. Although the court found that the “role played by the use of the car — constituting a substantial, and indeed, a proximate cause of the accident — was certainly sufficient to bring the present accident within the coverage of the automobile policy,” (a conclusion not questioned by either party), it did comment about the coverage clause: “Past California cases have established beyond contention that this language of ‘arising out of the use,’ when utilized in a coverage or insuring clause of an insurance policy, has broad and comprehensive application, and affords coverage for injuries bearing almost any causal relation with the vehicle.” 109 Cal.Rptr. 815, 514 P.2d 127[3, 4]. The Partridge case was of course not in res ipsa loquitur case such as this one. In the second case cited in the principal opinion, Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 142 Ga.App. 562, 236 S.E.2d 550 (1977), the action was to recover for medical and funeral expenses incurred with respect to bodily injury caused by an accident arising out of operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle within the terms of an *21insuring agreement of a policy. The deceased was riding as a passenger in a truck driven along a smooth paved road. When about a mile from the driver’s house, deceased took a pistol from the glove compartment and complained that it had jammed. The driver asked him to put it up, but did not notice what he did next. After she turned off the highway onto an unpaved bumpy road containing numerous potholes, and had proceeded a short distance toward the house, the gun went off and killed deceased. The court noted, page 551[1], “This [the ‘use’] clause, a common one in motor vehicle insurance policies, has been subject to construction in other states, and it is usually interpreted in a broad sense for the usual reasons: that it is ambiguous, or should be construed in favor of the insured, or against the party drafting it, * * The court followed similar rules of construction as the Schmidt case, supra, and said further, “That almost any causal connection or relationship will do, see Travelers Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., (Tenn.) 491 S.W.2d 363: * * And at footnote 8 of the Partridge opinion, supra, “Whenever circumstances reveal that the insured vehicle did bear some, albeit slight, causal connection with the shooting accident, courts have generally permitted recovery under automobile liability policies.” In the there cited cases, Dorsey v. Fidelity Union Casualty, 52 S.W.2d 775 (Tex.Civ.App.1932), held, in allowing recovery, that the danger of being injured in the loading of guns into a car, which was used to carry the parties and their firearms on a duck hunting trip, “was necessarily incident to the use of the car for the purpose for which it was then being used, and the injury was one of the consequences of such use.” Viani v. Aetna Insurance Company, 95 Idaho 22, 501 P.2d 706 (1976), involved unloading camping gear from a pickup, Viani tossing a bedroll belonging to Bowles from the truckbed onto a driveway, and a loaded pistol discharged when it hit the ground, wounding Viani. The court quoted with approval the Dorsey case, supra, on its issue of whether the injury resulted from the operation of the vehicle, and held that the Allstate policy provided coverage to Viani for the gunshot accident “as the occurrence arose during the loading and unloading of the pickup.” Allstate Insurance Company v. Valdez, 190 F.Supp. 893 (E.D.Mich.1961), involved a loading and unloading clause of a policy, which, as held, extends liability coverage beyond the limits of the words “maintenance and use”, but held that coverage existed for one shot and killed by a co-hunter who in unloading his gun about 25 feet from the automobile when he slipped, fell and struck the butt of the gun on the ground. The court applied the “complete operation” doctrine — to regard the entire delivery or preparatory process as an integral part of the “loading” or “unloading” of the vehicle, and found that policy coverage existed. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York v. Lott, 273 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1960), found coverage under an “ownership, maintenance or use” insuring agreement where insured was resting a rifle across the top of a parked automobile. The muzzle of the gun did not clear the curved top of the automobile and the bullet tore through it, was deflected downward, killing deceased who was seated in the right side front seat. As against the argument that the automobile was being “used” as a gun rest and not as a vehicle, the court said no such limitation was placed on the word “use” by the insurance company, and in answer to the insurer’s contention that a contract of liability insurance “may not properly be construed to recover for injuries that result from acts ‘wholly disassociated from, independent of and remote from the use’ of the [vehicle],” the court, citing cases, said, “[T]he words ‘incident to and arising out of the use of a motor vehicle’ are not restricted to occasions when the insured party was hurt either because of the running of the automobile or because of its standing after normal use.” See also Suburban Service Bus Company v. National Mutual Casualty Company, 237 Mo.App. 1128, 183 S.W.2d 376, 377-378 (Mo.App.1944), following the Schmidt case, supra, “The policy, by its terms, does not require that the injury was directly and proximately caused by the use of the bus, or caused *22by the bus itself, or that the injury occurred while the bus was in motion or operation. The policy insures against liability for injury arising out of the use of the bus. The words ‘arising out of the use of the bus’ are very broad, general, and comprehensive terms. The insurer made no attempt to limit the plain, usual, and ordinary meaning of the term ‘use’. We find nothing in the policy requiring that the use of the bus shall be the direct and proximate cause of the injury. The words ‘arising out of the use of the bus’ are much broader than words such as ‘directly and proximately caused by the use of the bus.’ ”
The facts here are that Howard Dale Ellis and Ronnie Ward were on a joint coyote hunting trip. The rifle, a dangerous instrument, was being transported in the pickup truck. Thus, the pickup truck was being used for that purpose, and the rifle was being carried on the seat pointed toward the right door of the vehicle. Upon the pickup truck coming to a stop, Howard Dale opened his door, alighted therefrom and closed the door. These were acts involving use of the pickup truck. At about this same time, the rifle discharged causing the injury. The injury and the use of the truck in carrying the rifle were clearly interrelated. It may not be said as a matter of law in this res ipsa loquitur case, whatever a jury might find as constituting negligence under that doctrine, that any such negligence was “entirely disconnected from and disassociated with the ownership, maintenance and use” of the pickup truck. The principal opinion entirely ignores the res ipsa loquitur pleading from which, if its elements are shown by the evidence, negligence could be found. The trial court in its observation, “[t]he explanation of how the thing happened, there is really not one thing pointing to one particular way in which it happened” which statement is quoted, apparently in approval in the principal opinion, patently misapplies the law under Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976), in that it is not required that plaintiff show specifically the cause of the discharge of the rifle. The principal opinion further ignores the plain pronouncements of the Schmidt and Suburban Service Bus cases, supra, as the rules of construction of insuring agreement clauses such as the one here in question. The judgment should be reversed and the case remanded with directions to enter a new judgment that liability insurance coverage exists for the underlying incident.
For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully dissent.