 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson v. Health Midwest Development Group3/6/2001
braking, downshifting, and swerving her vehicle to the right almost completely onto the shoulder, but was unable to avoid the accident. A subsequent investigation by the Missouri Highway Patrol (MHP) revealed that there were 21 feet of braking tire marks leading off the roadway from the appellant's car, but none from Schmidt's car. The investigation by the MHP did not disclose defects in either vehicle that could have contributed to or caused the accident. An investigating police officer, however, did find an empty beer container in Schmidt's car after the accident, and Schmidt admitted to drinking before the accident.
On February 14, 1997, the appellant filed a petition for damages against the respondent, a Missouri corporation doing business as the LRHC, wherein she alleged, inter alia, that the respondent's medical staff negligently failed to warn Schmidt not to drive while under the influence of the Compazine, and that the failure to so warn was the direct and proximate cause of her injuries. On April 2, 1997, the respondent filed its answer denying liability. In July 1999, the case went to trial, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict and the court declared a mistrial.
Before the retrial of the case, the respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on December 16, 1999, wherein it alleged that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law in that the appellant could not establish at trial that the respondent owed a duty of care to her or that one or more of the specifications of negligence was the direct and proximate cause of her injuries. The appellant filed her response to the respondent's motion on January 18, 2000, wherein she stipulated to the seven material facts alleged by the respondent not to be in dispute and alleged numerous additional material facts she claimed were still in dispute. On February 15, 2000, the trial court sustained the respondent's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment accordingly.
This appeal follows.
Standard of Review
In reviewing the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the respondent:
ur review is essentially de novo. The criteria on appeal for testing the propriety of summary judgment are no different from those which should be employed by the trial court to determine the propriety of sustaining the motion initially. The propriety of summary judgment is purely an issue of law. As the trial court's judgment is founded on the record submitted and the law, an appellate court need not defer to the trial court's order granting summary judgment. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993) (citations omitted).
Summary judgment will be upheld on appeal if: (1) there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and (2) the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 377.
In considering an appeal from a summary judgment, we are to:
review the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered. Facts set forth by affidavit or otherwise in support of a party's motion are taken as true unless contradicted by the non-moving party's response to the summary judgment motion. We accord the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record. Id. at 376 (citations omitted).
I.
In Point I, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in granting the respondent's motion for summary judgment on her negligence claim against it based on there being no duty of care owed by the respondent because, as a matter of law, on the undisputed material facts alleged by the respondent and the facts still in dispute, a reasonable
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|