Tracy v. Vapotane Corp.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tracy v. Vapotane Corp.

510 S.W.2d 824, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1219

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 1974

DocketNo. KCD 26802

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 510 S.W.2d 824 (Tracy v. Vapotane Corp.) 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

Tracy v. Vapotane Corp., 510 S.W.2d 824, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1219 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PRITCHARD, Presiding Judge.

This case concerns an action for damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. For her cause of action, appellant claimed that she was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband, a servant and employee of respondent acting within the scope and course of his employment, when said husband negligently caused or permitted the vehicle to be driven off the roadway and into a ditch. Appellant claimed she sustained personal injuries as a direct and proximate result of the driver’s negligence. She brought this action against the driver’s employer, Vapo-tane Corporation, on a theory of respon-deat superior.

Trial was to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of appellant and awarded her $3,000.00. She filed a motion for a new trial. The motion was overruled and she appeals claiming error in the verdict directing instruction and its converse.

The assailed instructions dealt solely with the issue of liability which the jury resolved in favor of appellant. Consequently, any alleged error in the submission of [825]*825the liability issue becomes harmless error insofar as appellant is concerned. Kohler v. McNeary, 498 S.W.2d 796 (Mo. 1973); Chapman v. King, 396 S.W.2d 29 (Mo.App.1965).

Appellant has not demonstrated that the verdict was inadequate let alone clearly demonstrated that the verdict was inadequate because of the claimed error in the instruction. She merely makes the conclu-sory argument that the assailed instructions “obviously resulted in a compromise verdict of a lesser amount than the facts of the case would normally warrant.”

Appellant received a judgment for $3,000.00 and has shown no error in the trial as respects the damages issue. No grounds for reversal of the judgment have been shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

PRITCHARD, Presiding Judge.

This case concerns an action for damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. For her cause of action, appellant claimed that she was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband, a servant and employee of respondent acting within the scope and course of his employment, when said husband negligently caused or permitted the vehicle to be driven off the roadway and into a ditch. Appellant claimed she sustained personal injuries as a direct and proximate result of the driver’s negligence. She brought this action against the driver’s employer, Vapo-tane Corporation, on a theory of respon-deat superior.

Trial was to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of appellant and awarded her $3,000.00. She filed a motion for a new trial. The motion was overruled and she appeals claiming error in the verdict directing instruction and its converse.

The assailed instructions dealt solely with the issue of liability which the jury resolved in favor of appellant. Consequently, any alleged error in the submission of [825]*825the liability issue becomes harmless error insofar as appellant is concerned. Kohler v. McNeary, 498 S.W.2d 796 (Mo. 1973); Chapman v. King, 396 S.W.2d 29 (Mo.App.1965).

Appellant has not demonstrated that the verdict was inadequate let alone clearly demonstrated that the verdict was inadequate because of the claimed error in the instruction. She merely makes the conclu-sory argument that the assailed instructions “obviously resulted in a compromise verdict of a lesser amount than the facts of the case would normally warrant.”

Appellant received a judgment for $3,000.00 and has shown no error in the trial as respects the damages issue. No grounds for reversal of the judgment have been shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 S.W.2d 824, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tracy-v-vapotane-corp-moctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack