Chandler v. Mattox

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chandler v. Mattox

544 S.W.2d 85, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2278

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 1976

DocketNo. 38047

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 544 S.W.2d 85 (Chandler v. Mattox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chandler v. Mattox, 544 S.W.2d 85, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2278 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWD, Judge.

Plaintiff’s suit for negligence was dismissed with prejudice following her admission that her injuries were due in part to her contributory negligence. On appeal, plaintiff argues that dismissal by the trial court was error because the doctrine of contributory negligence should be replaced by the doctrine of comparative negligence which would not bar recovery.

The doctrine of comparative negligence is not the law in Missouri. Howard v. Scarritt Estate Co., 267 Mo. 398, 402, 184 S.W. 1144(2] (1916); Reed v. Shelly, 378 S.W.2d 291[20] (Mo.App.1969). The doctrine of contributory negligence continues to be the applicable law in Missouri, Vanasse v. Plautz, 538 S.W.2d 928[5] (Mo.App.1976); Lee v. Knight, 538 S.W.2d 345 (Mo.App.1976), and the trial court did not err in [86]*86sustaining a motion for summary judgment based on the application of this doctrine.

Plaintiff raises two other points in her brief which read: “1. This court should adopt the pure form of comparative negligence”, and “2. The new rule should be applied to the instant case.” These points must be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., in that plaintiff does not state any error on the part of the trial court.

After careful review of the record, briefs and authorities, we conclude that the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit with prejudice is not erroneous. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

WEIER, P. J., and CLEMENS, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DOWD, Judge.

Plaintiff’s suit for negligence was dismissed with prejudice following her admission that her injuries were due in part to her contributory negligence. On appeal, plaintiff argues that dismissal by the trial court was error because the doctrine of contributory negligence should be replaced by the doctrine of comparative negligence which would not bar recovery.

The doctrine of comparative negligence is not the law in Missouri. Howard v. Scarritt Estate Co., 267 Mo. 398, 402, 184 S.W. 1144(2] (1916); Reed v. Shelly, 378 S.W.2d 291[20] (Mo.App.1969). The doctrine of contributory negligence continues to be the applicable law in Missouri, Vanasse v. Plautz, 538 S.W.2d 928[5] (Mo.App.1976); Lee v. Knight, 538 S.W.2d 345 (Mo.App.1976), and the trial court did not err in [86]*86sustaining a motion for summary judgment based on the application of this doctrine.

Plaintiff raises two other points in her brief which read: “1. This court should adopt the pure form of comparative negligence”, and “2. The new rule should be applied to the instant case.” These points must be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R., in that plaintiff does not state any error on the part of the trial court.

After careful review of the record, briefs and authorities, we conclude that the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the plaintiff’s suit with prejudice is not erroneous. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

WEIER, P. J., and CLEMENS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

544 S.W.2d 85, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-mattox-moctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack