Plaisted v. AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY

362 S.W.3d 26, 2012 WL 216456, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 88
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 24, 2012
DocketED 96870
StatusPublished

This text of 362 S.W.3d 26 (Plaisted v. AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY) 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
Plaisted v. AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, 362 S.W.3d 26, 2012 WL 216456, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 88 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dean and Leroy Plaisted (Appellants) appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of AMCO Insurance Company (AMCO) and Eastern Missouri Commission Company (EMCC). Appellants were seriously injured when their vehicle was struck broadside as they exited EMCC’s private driveway onto a local highway. Appellants brought a negligence action against AMCO seeking uninsured motorist benefits under a theory that the owner of a vehicle parked on the shoulder of the highway breached a duty to Appellants to refrain from parking in a manner that obstructed their view of vehicles traveling on the highway. Appellants also asserted an action in negligence against EMCC, alleging that EMCC breached a duty to prevent vehicles from parking along the shoulder of the adjacent highway in a manner that obscured the view of vehicles exiting EMCC property. The trial court granted summary judgment to both AMCO and EMCC. Because the record contains no evidence that the vehicle parked on the shoulder of the highway caused Appellants’ accident, and because EMCC did not owe Appellants any duty with regard to vehicles lawfully parking on a public roadway, we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment.

*27 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this ease would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(5).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
362 S.W.3d 26, 2012 WL 216456, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plaisted-v-amco-insurance-company-moctapp-2012.