Jensen v. English

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jensen v. English

592 S.W.2d 541, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2709

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 31, 1979

DocketNo. KCD 30453

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 592 S.W.2d 541 (Jensen v. English) 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

Jensen v. English, 592 S.W.2d 541, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2709 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

SHANGLER, Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff sued for personal injury for the negligent operation by defendant of a motor vehicle. The issue of contributory negligence was asserted by the defendant and submitted by instruction. The plaintiff contended for an instruction on comparative negligence, but made no tender to the court. The jury returned verdict for the defendant.

On appeal the plaintiff contends that Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Whitehead & Kales Company, 566 S.W.2d 466 (Mo. banc 1978) — which distributes indemnity among concurrent tortfeasors according to relative fault — sounds the tocsin for contributory negligence as a principle of law and augurs for comparative negligence. The plaintiff suggests that what a court has done to abrogate the common law prohibition against contribution among joint tort-feasors (Whitehead & Kales, supra] and the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity [Jones v. State Highway Commission, 557 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. banc 1977)] a court may yet do to abrogate the common law rule of contributory negligence.

This very contention was considered before Whitehead & Kales by the Missouri Supreme Court en banc, and rejected. Epple v. Western Auto Supply Co., 557 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Mo. banc 1977). This very contention was considered again after Whitehead & Kales by the Missouri Supreme Court en banc, and again rejected. Steinman v. Strobel, 589 S.W.2d 293 [Mo. banc, 1979].

The plaintiff suggests no other point of error.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

SHANGLER, Presiding Judge.

The plaintiff sued for personal injury for the negligent operation by defendant of a motor vehicle. The issue of contributory negligence was asserted by the defendant and submitted by instruction. The plaintiff contended for an instruction on comparative negligence, but made no tender to the court. The jury returned verdict for the defendant.

On appeal the plaintiff contends that Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Whitehead & Kales Company, 566 S.W.2d 466 (Mo. banc 1978) — which distributes indemnity among concurrent tortfeasors according to relative fault — sounds the tocsin for contributory negligence as a principle of law and augurs for comparative negligence. The plaintiff suggests that what a court has done to abrogate the common law prohibition against contribution among joint tort-feasors (Whitehead & Kales, supra] and the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity [Jones v. State Highway Commission, 557 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. banc 1977)] a court may yet do to abrogate the common law rule of contributory negligence.

This very contention was considered before Whitehead & Kales by the Missouri Supreme Court en banc, and rejected. Epple v. Western Auto Supply Co., 557 S.W.2d 253, 254 (Mo. banc 1977). This very contention was considered again after Whitehead & Kales by the Missouri Supreme Court en banc, and again rejected. Steinman v. Strobel, 589 S.W.2d 293 [Mo. banc, 1979].

The plaintiff suggests no other point of error.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 S.W.2d 541, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jensen-v-english-moctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack