Jeffrey T. Blackwell v. CSF Properties 2 LLC
443 S.W.3d 711
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In April 2009 plaintiff Jeffrey Blackwell fell from a low (≈19") brick porch enclosure at a rental house owned by CSF Properties 2, LLC and was paralyzed after being pushed during an altercation.
- Blackwell sued alleging negligence and negligence per se (building-code/ordinance violations regarding porch/enclosure height) arising from the same occurrence.
- Defendant moved for partial summary judgment on negligence per se (July 2012); the trial court denied that motion.
- Defendant later moved for partial summary judgment on negligence (May 2013), arguing plaintiff was a trespasser or at most a licensee who knew the hazard, and that the condition was open and obvious.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for defendant on the negligence claim (Nov. 25, 2013), finding plaintiff was a licensee who appreciated the risk; the order did not address negligence per se.
- The appellate court concluded the partial summary judgment did not resolve the entire judicial unit (negligence and negligence per se arise from the same facts), so there was no final, appealable judgment, and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finality / appealability | The Nov. 25 order dismissed plaintiff's entire petition, so appealable | The order disposed of plaintiff's petition (or subsumed negligence per se) and is reviewable | Appeal dismissed: order was partial and did not resolve negligence per se, so not final or appealable (no Rule 74.01(b) certification) |
| Classification of entrant (licensee vs trespasser) | Court applied wrong law by treating plaintiff as licensee | Plaintiff was not owed a duty (trespasser) or, if licensee, knew the risk | Not reached — appellate court declined to decide merits due to lack of final judgment |
| Whether disputed element (awareness of risk) could be decided on summary judgment | Plaintiff: fact issue existed so summary judgment improper | Defendant: evidence showed plaintiff knew the condition and appreciated the risk; open-and-obvious | Not reached — merits not addressed by appellate court |
| Negligence per se — whether disposed by the negligence ruling | Plaintiff: negligence per se remained viable | Defendant: negligence ruling or arguments necessarily disposed negligence per se | Held: Negligence per se was not adjudicated by the Nov. 25 order; prior motion on negligence per se had been denied; thus the claim remains pending |
Key Cases Cited
- Ndegwa v. KSSO, LLC, 371 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2012) (final judgment prerequisite for appellate review)
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (definition of distinct "judicial unit" and finality)
- Talbot v. Union Elec. Co., 157 S.W.3d 376 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (Rule 74.01(b) certification requirements)
- Moreland v. Farren-Davis, 995 S.W.2d 512 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (claims arising from same facts constitute one judicial unit)
- Mediq PRN Life Support Servs., Inc. v. Abrams, 899 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994) (elements of negligence per se)
- Weaks v. Rupp, 966 S.W.2d 387 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (elements of negligence claim)