Court Opinion

ID: 8020222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 02:16:19.704123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:35:52.064280
License: Public Domain

TIPTON, J.
(concurring). — I concur in the result of the opinion prepared by Chief Justice Hyde. I fully concur in everything in that opinion except what is said in reference to the “sole cause” instruction.
The “sole cause” doctrine is of recent origin in this court. It might be said that this rule of law grew from statements made in the opinion in the case of Causey v. Wittig, 321 Mo. 358, 11 S. W. 2d 11 (1928) en banc, and Borgstede v. Waldbauer, 337 Mo. 1205, 88 S. W. 2d 373 (1935) en banc. In both of these cases, the phrase, “sole cause”, was used as an illustration but neither of these cases involved an instruction that used the phrase, “sole cause”. I do not believe a “sole cause” instruction can serve any useful purpose in a two-party humanitarian law suit. In my opinion, a “sole cause” phrase added to a converse instruction, as suggested in the Chief Justice’s opinion, would only create confusion. I know of no other state that has approved a “sole cause” instruction in a humanitarian or last chance ease. I am unable to harmonize our opinions where a “sole cause” instruction has been presented for our review. The curious may examine them. They are as follows:
*361Doherty v. St. Louis Butter Co., 339 Mo. 996, 98 S. W. 2d 742 (1936); Johnston v. Ramming, 340 Mo. 311, 100 S. W. 2d 466 (1937); Dilallo v. Lynch, 340 Mo. 82, 101 S. W. 2d 7 (1936); McGrath v. Meyers, 341 Mo. 412, 107 S. W. 2d 792 (1937); Smithers v. Barker, 341 Mo. 1017, 111 S. W. 2d 47 (1937); Crews v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 341 Mo. 1090, 111 S. W. 2d 54 (1937); Branson v. Abernathy Furniture Co., 344 Mo. 1171, 130 S. W. 2d 562 (1939); Reiling v. Russell, 345 Mo. 517, 134 S. W. 2d 33 (1939); Kick v. Franklin, 345 Mo. 752, 137 S. W. 2d 512 (1939); State ex rel. Snider v. Shain, 345 Mo. 950, 137 S. W. 2d 527 (1940); Mendenhall v. Neyer, 347 Mo. 881, 149 S. W. 2d 366 (1941); Shields v. Keller, 348 Mo. 326, 153 S. W. 2d 60 (1941); Hollister v. A. S. Aloe Co., 348 Mo. 1055, 156 S. W. 2d 606 (1941); Hopkins v. Highland Dairy Farms Co., 348 Mo. 1158, 159 S. W. 2d 254 (1941); Borrson v. M.-K.-T. R. Co., 351 Mo. 214, 172 S. W. 2d 826 (1943); Johnson v. Dawidoff, 352 Mo. 343, 177 S. W. 2d 467 (1944); Robb v. St. Louis Pub. Ser. Co., 352 Mo. 566, 178 S. W. 2d 443 (1944); Bootee v. Kansas City Pub. Ser. Co., 353 Mo. 716, 183 S. W. 2d 892 (1944); Schlemmer v. McGee, 185 S. W. 2d 806 (1945); Kimbrough v. Chervitz, 353 Mo. 1154, 186 S. W. 2d 461 (1945); Jants v. St. Louis Pub. Ser. Co., 356 Mo. 985, 204 S. W. 2d 698 (1947); Teague v. Plaza Express Co., 356 Mo. 1186, 205 S. W. 2d 563 (1947); Steffen v. Ritter, 214 S. W. 2d 28 (1948); and Weis v. Melvin, 219 S. W. 2d 310 (1949).
In view of the above, I think we should abolish this' court-made rule of law of “sole cause.”
Clark and Conkling, JJ., concur.