Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

06/21/83 SHARON PERRICONE v. JOHN DEBLAZE

June 21, 1983

SHARON PERRICONE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN DEBLAZE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.



From the Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Civil Appeal; Judge Margaret M. Nolan.

Motion for Rehearing Overruled, Transfer Denied August 1, 1983. Application Denied September 20, 1983.

Before Simon, P.j., Stephan, Karohl, JJ.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stephan

Plaintiff Sharon Perricone appeals from a judgment against her and for defendant John DeBlaze on her claim for damages arising out of an automobile collision. We affirm.

On January 13, 1978, plaintiff was a dinner guest at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Tom Wheeler. Also present at the Wheeler home was an acquaintance of plaintiff, Robert Judd. When plaintiff was ready to leave, Judd offered to drive her home, and plaintiff agreed. By mutual agreement, Judd and plaintiff did not proceed directly to plaintiff's home but drove around in the vicinity looking at Christmas lights. At a point several blocks from plaintiff's home, Judd pulled into a driveway on the north side of Acorn Street. After an undetermined length of time, Judd backed the car into the street blocking both lanes, where the car was struck by a west bound vehicle driver by defendant.

Plaintiff on appeal complains that the trial court erred in submitting instruction number 9, which permitted the jury to impute the negligence of the non-party driver to the plaintiff-passenger on the theory of joint venture. *fn1 Instruction number 9 is set out as follows:

Your verdict must be for defendant if you believe:

First, the driver, Robert Judd, was on a joint venture with plaintiff, at the time of the collision, and

Second, Robert Judd stopped plaintiff's motor vehicle in a lane reserved for moving traffic, and

Third, Robert Judd was thereby negligent, and

Fourth, such negligence of Robert Judd directly caused or directly contributed to cause any damage plaintiff may have sustained.

Acts were within a "joint venture" as the phrase is used in this instruction if:

1. They were performed by Robert Judd to serve the common interests of plaintiff and Robert Judd according to an expressed or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.