*1 (1979). not agree L.Ed.2d 499 We do with interpretation. theory
this The misnomer STATE ex rel. Adelaide H. P. long existed before the Rule amendment of BITTING, Relator, 15(c) 55.33(c). present and our Rule theory and, conceptually is still sound balance, apply. vitality not to difficult Its ADOLF, George A. Honorable and effectiveness have served us well Judge, Circuit Court past, the reason to change and we see no or Louis, Respondent. of St. discard it. No. 67350. finality judg The issue of the Missouri, Supreme of Court ment Having is also before us. failed in En Banc. his appeal judgment of the trial court’s the Appeals, Western District Court of Feb. plaintiff, time, the first now contends thus, judgment and, the was not final ar
gues appeal premature. Defendant judgment fi
continues to contend We, sponte
nal. in sua
quire finality judgment into the jurisdiction.
assure our record, argu-
On present sensible against finality
ments both favor and made, judgment can reflected majority dissenting opin- incisive
ions of the Western District. The more
compelling argument supports the conclu- judgment
sion final. purpose
No useful would be served explaining detailed discussion
extended or
our choice of this conclusion. Plaintiff can- complain. complete
not He will receive his
day complain. Defendant cannot court. consistently judg-
It has maintained the Thus,
ment required is final. no addition is already burgeoning
to the area of the law finality judgment.
This reversed and remanded to cause is proceedings con-
the trial court for further opinion.
sistent with BLACK- RENDLEN, JJ.,
MAR, WELLIVER, and
concur.
DONNELLY, J., participating. not
ROBERTSON, J., participating be- the Court
cause a member of
cause was submitted. *2 Siegel, Lanigan, Cyn-
Cordell David C. Louis, Nangle Bitting, thia St. for relator. Burns, Singleton, Gary John B. Dennis C. McConnell, Louis, respondent. D. for St. BLACKMAR,Judge. opinion we overrule Cor
poration v. relator, Bitting, Adelaide H.P. a resi- County, dent of St. filed suit in the Louis City Louis Circuit Court of St. Jones, against Hospital, Ida Helene Barnes Center, University Washington Medical Washington University. The claim Jones, County, Louis a resident of St. personal injuries to result from for said county. The traffic accident in that sought were to be held for al- defendants leged malpractice in the treatment of the resulting the accident. The injuries support plaintiff sought to ground of the defendants on the that all Washington Hospital Barnes Universi- corporations having ty Medical Center are places registered offices in the of St. Louis. business moved to dismiss the Defendant Jones improper for venue. case her judge the motion un- sustained Sperry. We issued authority der the prohibition to consid- provisional rule in our overruled. er whether case should be points to the manifest The relator litigating overlapping convenience of By familiar in a lawsuit. claims law,1 negligently causes an person who Leslie, Normandy Orthopedics v. Schumacher 360 Mo. 1. See State ex rel. Fitzporter, Crandall, 1979); Parkell v. 301 Mo. Murphy, for all is liable caused accident accident, including malpractice general dam- to venue gave sanction negligent result- ages any properly treatment of the county of residence of ing injuries. The how- Garrison medical joined defendant. State ex rel. ever, are liable for that Wagner Co. v. Schaaf *3 by which total is caused 1975), third-party held that a claim banc defendants, malpractice. The two sets of in without could be maintained a lawsuit then, severally may jointly be liable and third-party regard the residence of the plaintiff’s damages. a There, here, element of defendant. Missouri of our decisions in reason strong. If the claims now convenience was Pacific Co., 566 v. R. Co. Whitehead & Kales filed, separately been before us had (Mo. 1978) banc and might indeed be into a law- ease converted Gustafson Benda, 1983), v. S.W.2d 11 banc one indistinguishable from this suit the element of convenience in consolidated third-party proceedings. Our means of enhanced, great- litigation is because of prior accords with cases conclusion par- er interrelation of the claims of the spirit governing with the letter and Sperry, however, a bar to ties.2 stands as and rules. statutes consolidation. provisional rule made The is absolute. convenience, Interests prohibited dismiss- justify of a cannot the maintenance im- ing claim Jones for relator’s in statutes. We suit violation proper venue. however, Sperry enunciated believe, unduly restrictive of the con application WEL- action,” the “cause of which is cept of RENDLEN, LIVER, ROBERTSON and in found neither nor term venue statutes JJ., concur. now hold the Rules of Civil Procedure. We there are that when several DONNELLY, J., separate concurs in corporations,3 individuals and some some opinion filed. may they liability when for all or share them, plaintiff’s part of the claim DONNELLY, Judge, concurring. brought county in which may suit be Benda, v. In 661 S.W.2d Gustafson any resides 508.- pursuant defendant § 1983), toward this Court moved addi presence of an RSMo party occurrence assuring that each to an defendant, tional claim one propor responsibility bear “should involved, others are should which Strobel, v. Steinman fault.” to his tion way. stand in the 1979) (Don 293, 296 gener- holding is consistent with Our J., dissenting). nelly, the interrela- cases which treat of al line of view, opinion is an- my In rules and the the venue statutes tion of Sperry step in that direction and (Rule 52.- joinder of governing claims. longer viable. no 1978).4 507.040, 05(a), RSMo based § Co., Inc. I concur. ex rel. Farmers Insurance State presented Hochdoerfer, problems are 3. Different venue Staehlin v. 256 S.W. (Mo.1921); corporations. rel. rel. Blond v. State ex S.W. 1060 State ex are all defendants Stubbs, Gaertner, (Mo.App.1972). (Mo.App. Whaley does not of claims the same lawsuit 2.Joinder necessarily trial court lead to trial. The Corporation discussion in 4. See extensive separate trials the discretion to order retains pursuant to Rule 66.02. Convenience Blackmar, J., dissenting. promoted inconsistent because nevertheless findings questions concern could of mutual be avoided.