Court Opinion

ID: 9683379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:27:46.054503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:47.479505
License: Public Domain

On Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing

In his “Motion for Rehearing or to Modify Opinion” plaintiff seeks to uphold Instruction No. 4 by arguing that it was not necessary for the instruction to include the omitted element because “under the circumstances of this case, there was a presumption that Danny was in the exercise of due care at the time of the occurrence.” Plaintiff asserts that the presumption “supplied the missing element as a matter of law.”
Plaintiff’s position is untenable. If, which need not be decided, Danny was entitled to the presumption of due care on this record, “still such presumption does not supply the place of evidence of defendant’s negligence. ‘It is not a presumption of defendant’s negligence but one of deceased’s freedom from contributory negligence. It does not relieve plaintiff from the burden of proving defendant’s negligence. One presumption cannot be based upon another.’ Menteer v. Scalzo Fruit Co., 240 Mo. 177, 186, 144 S.W. 833, 836.” Katz v. North Kansas City Development Co., 215 Mo.App. 662, 258 S.W. 752, 758[7] (1924). See also Darby v. Henwood, 346 Mo. 1204, 145 S.W.2d 376, 380[7] (1940).
“Courts have disapproved of the use of the presumption of due care as proof of a causal connection between the negligence of a person other than the decedent and the death, or as evidence that the defendant was negligent.” 22 Am.Jur.2d Death § 215, p. 761. To similar effect see 25A C.J.S. Death § 80(1), p. 814.
The presumption under consideration is of no aid to plaintiff in his task of proving the elements of his cause of action against defendant. Neither does it cure a verdict-directing instruction which omits such an element.
Plaintiff’s motion is denied.