 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Stockley5/24/2005
gas burning engine and that he believed the speed-governing device had been removed or disabled: "there was talk that people would remove the governors to make them move faster than they were actually supposedly capable of doing, faster than the proposed speed limit."
There was no evidence to contradict the witnesses' conclusions that the tug was not designed originally for use mainly on public roads. Stockley challenges the probative value of these witnesses' testimony under Meeks , claiming that only those particular individuals who engineered the vehicle originally are qualified to testify about their design intentions. No such thing is required by Meeks. In fact, in Meeks , it appears that the only evidence of the plans of those who engineered the vehicle originally was the manufacturer's instruction manual accompanying the dune buggy kit and the testimony of the consumer who assembled it. See id. at 25.Here, Barclay was a 19-year employee of the manufacturer familiar with the design of this model tug. That he was not involved with the inception of the design does not render his testimony irrelevant.
Moreover--and more importantly to the disposition of this case given that it was Stockley's burden to prove coverage--if Barclay's and the retained expert's conclusions are irrelevant, then there was no evidence presented to the trial court of the tug's original design. The testimony about modifications was not specific to this tug and was speculative at best, based on "talk" Stockley had overheard; without more, his testimony does not show that the tug was modified for use mainly on public roads. It was Stockley's burden to prove that the tug was designed for use mainly on public roads. Thus, any failure to produce sufficient evidence of the plans of those who engineered this vehicle originally and the plans of anyone who modified it is a failure of Stockley to meet that burden.
C. Public Road
Stockley also argues that, if relevant at all, Barclay's and the retained expert's testimony shows at most that the tug was designed for use on the airport tarmac, which, he claims, is a public road. Stockley mischaracterizes the testimony. Both witnesses testified not just that the tug was designed to carry baggage, but also expressly concluded that the tug was not designed for use mainly on public roads. Nevertheless, under no construction of the term "public roads" and the evidence in this case does the airport tarmac constitute a public road.
Because "public roads" is not defined in the policy, we must give it "its common or usual meaning, or the meaning the policyholder would give it, not the insurer's technical definition." Camden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 66 S.W.3d 78, 81 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001).Here, the parties give virtually the same meaning to the term "public roads," citing various case s in which our courts have discussed the nature of a public road . Common to all of these cases, including those cited by Stockley, is the notion that a road is only public if the public has the right to access the road. The Southern District had concisely summarized what our courts have consistently held:
Whether a road is public or private is determined by the extent of the right to use it, not by the extent to which that right is exercised or by the quantity of travel over it. A public roadway exists if the use of the roadway is free and common to all citizens, and the public has actual access to it. This determination is not wholly dependent on the roadway's length, or on the place to which it leads, or on the number of people who use it.
Faustlin v. Mathis , 99 S.W.3d 546, 549 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (internal quotation
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|