397 S.W.3d 44
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Saunders sued Baska for negligence arising from a 2008 intersection collision at an uncontrolled intersection; alleged failure to yield, failure to keep a lookout, and excessive speed.
- Plaintiff claimed Baska failed to yield the right-of-way and failed to keep a careful lookout; punitive damages also sought but later severed.
- Saunders testified he has limited recollection of the crash; EMTs noted his account of speeds (about 10 mph vs 10–15 mph for Baska).
- Baska, then 16, testified she stopped, looked, and saw no oncoming traffic, proceeding into the intersection.
- Evidence included photos of vehicle damages, testimony about unobstructed view to the left, and Baska’s late-morning texting and lateness.
- The circuit court granted Baska a directed verdict on all negligence theories, and Saunders appealed; the appellate court reversed and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right-of-way duty at an uncontrolled intersection | Saunders shows he entered first or nearly first | Baska argues look left/right was sufficient | Directed verdict on right-of-way reversed; submissible case shown |
| Failure to keep a careful lookout | Evidence supports lookout failure despite Baska stopping | Baska kept a lookout by stopping and looking | Directed verdict on lookout reversed; substantial evidence supports submission |
Key Cases Cited
- Moreland v. Crain, 722 S.W.2d 322 (Mo.App.1986) (duty to yield and right-of-way rules at uncontrolled intersections)
- Krenski v. Aubuchon, 841 S.W.2d 721 (Mo.App.1992) (left vehicle yields to right when entering simultaneously)
- Harrellson v. Barks, 326 S.W.2d 351 (Mo.App.1959) (negative duty to yield; absolute duty to avoid collision)
- Hudson v. Whiteside, 34 S.W.3d 420 (Mo.App.2000) (absence of time/distance proof does not preclude submissibility when danger created by failure to see)
- McWilliams v. Wright, 460 S.W.2d 699 (Mo.1970) (unobstructed view supports lookout liability when avoidance would have been prudent)
- Williams v. Christian, 520 S.W.2d 139 (Mo.App.1974) (time/distance not always necessary to prove lookout)
- Zempel v. Slater, 182 S.W.3d 609 (Mo.App.2005) (time/distance analysis in lookout cases; relieved by alternative showing)