Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Allied Services, LLC

267 S.W.3d 750, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1129, 2008 WL 3905966
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedAugust 26, 2008
DocketED 89928
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 S.W.3d 750 (Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Allied Services, LLC) 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
Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Allied Services, LLC, 267 S.W.3d 750, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1129, 2008 WL 3905966 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Smith (Plaintiff), as guardian and conservator of the person and the estate of his son, Benjamin Smith (Smith), appeals from the judgment entered against him and in favor of Allied Services, LLC (Allied) and Randy Hankins (Hankins) (collectively Defendants) for injuries Smith sustained in a collision between his vehicle and a garbage truck driven by Hankins. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for damages against Allied and Hankins alleging Han-kins was negligent in the operation of his vehicle and as a result caused or directly contributed to Smith’s injuries. Defendants denied all allegations of negligence and raised the affirmative defense of comparative fault. Following a jury trial, Smith was found 100% at fault and judgment was entered on the verdict.

On appeal, Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in (1) overruling his objection to testimony that Smith was an alcoholic and had a pre-existing brain injury caused by chronic alcoholism; (2) refusing to hold a pre-trial hearing regarding Smith’s competency to testify at his deposition; (3) overruling his objection to reading portions of Smith’s deposition because the evidence showed that Plaintiff was incompetent to testify at his deposition, and; (4) overruling his objection to reading portions of Smith’s deposition in which Defendants impeached Smith with his past DWI convictions. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Related

State v. Luckett
267 S.W.3d 750 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 S.W.3d 750, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1129, 2008 WL 3905966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-ex-rel-smith-v-allied-services-llc-moctapp-2008.