Court Opinion

ID: 9665065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:38:25.293545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:12.565663
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR TRANSFER
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to Rules 84.17 and 83.02, the defendant requests we rehear this appeal or transfer it to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The defendant calls our attention to our failure to address her argument that §§ 287.120.1 and 351.355.3, RSMo 1986, are inconsistent in that the employer’s immunity under § 287.120.1 is “rendered meaningless” and “eviscerated” by the indemnification provision of § 351.355.3.
We do not consider the merits of the defendant’s argument. “[Cjourts are not organized and do not function for the purpose of settling abstract or academic questions of law....” State ex rel. Weber v. Vossbrink, 333 S.W.2d 298, 301[3] (Mo. App.1960). Appellate courts do not render advisory opinions. Warren v. Warren, 601 S.W.2d 683, 687[12] (Mo.App.1980).
In the context of this lawsuit, the defendant’s assertion that the statutory provi*565sions are inconsistent raises a purely hypothetical issue. If the employer’s statutory immunity is negated by the indemnification requirement, the aggrieved entity would be the defendant’s employer, which is not a party to this suit.