 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hemme v. Bharti6/28/2005
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED.
Holliger, P.J., and Ellis, J., concur.
Opinion:
Terri Jo Hemme and Terry Hemme appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sam Bharti, Kusum Bharti, Bharti Midway Properties, Inc. (referred to collectively as "the Bharti Defendants"), and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company on the Hemmes' claims arising out of an automobile accident. On appeal, the Hemmes assert that the trial court erred, in two respects, in granting summary judgment in favor of the Bharti Defendants and R.J. Reynolds and in dismissing their claims. First, they claim that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Rule 55.32(a), the compulsory counterclaim rule, does not bar them from asserting their claims against the Bharti Defendants and R. J. Reynolds, their co-defendants in a prior suit. Second, they contend that the doctrine of res judicata does not bar their claims. Because this court finds that Rule 55.32(a) bars the Hemmes' claims because they were compulsory counterclaims in the prior suit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural Background
On February 6, 1998, while Ms. Hemme was pulling out of the Bharti Liquor Store parking lot in Lexington, her vehicle collided with another vehicle, which was being driven by Deborah Harrison. As a result of the collision, both Ms. Hemme and Ms. Harrison sustained injuries. Ms. Harrison filed suit against Ms. Hemme and Sam Bharti, owner of the Bharti Liquor Store. Ms. Harrison alleged that Ms. Hemme negligently operated her vehicle and that Sam Bharti negligently placed signs on his property that blocked the vision of traffic entering or exiting his parking lot. Ms. Harrison subsequently filed an amended petition adding Kusum Bharti and Bharti Midway Properties, Inc., as additional defendants.
Thereafter, the Bharti Defendants filed a third-party petition against R.J. Reynolds. The Bharti Defendants alleged that R.J. Reynolds was responsible for placement of the sign that allegedly impaired the view of both Ms. Hemme and Ms. Harrison. The Bharti Defendants sought contribution or partial indemnity from R.J. Reynolds, in the event the Bharti Defendants were held liable to Ms. Harrison for her injuries. Ms. Harrison eventually filed a third amended petition, which added R.J. Reynolds as a defendant.
In response, the Bharti Defendants filed an amended answer to Ms. Harrison's third amended petition and cross-claims against Ms. Hemme and R.J. Reynolds. The cross-claims sought contribution and apportionment of fault should the Bharti Defendants be found liable for Ms. Harrison's injuries. R.J. Reynolds followed suit by filing an amended answer to Ms. Harrison's third amended petition and cross-claims against Ms. Hemme and the Bharti Defendants for contribution and apportionment of fault should R.J. Reynolds be found liable for Ms. Harrison's injuries.
On May 22, 2002, Ms. Hemme filed an answer to the Bharti Defendants' cross-claim. Ms. Hemme also asserted a cross-claim against the Bharti Defendants and R.J. Reynolds for contribution by way of apportionment of fault should she be found liable for Ms. Harrison's injuries. Ms. Hemme's cross-claim did not seek damages for the personal injuries she sustained in the accident. Ultimately, by the end of 2002, Ms. Harrison's lawsuit was settled and the parties dismissed all of their claims with prejudice.
On February 3, 2003, the Hemmes filed the instant lawsuit stating claims arising out of the same accident. In Count I of their petition, the Hemmes alleged that the Bharti Defendants maintained a dangerous condition on their property, that being a cigarette
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|