In Presley, id., exoneration of an employee in an assault claim necessarily was exoneration of the corporation. In Roberts v. Wayne, 624 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Mo.App. 1981), a health care corporation which was named in a medical malpractice action with a surgeon could not be found liable unless the surgeon was found liable. See also, Standard Meat Co. v. Taco Kid of Springfield, Inc., 554 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Mo.App. 1977), wherein a defendant corporation could not be liable unless the its agent was found liable.
The weight of the evidence is for the trial court; we do not review his ruling on this point. Roberts v. Wayne, 624 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Mo.App. 1981); Hartley v. Matejka, 585 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Mo.App. 1979). The complaint that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice was not raised in plaintiff's motion for new trial and is not preserved for review. Rule 78.07. Ferguson v. Boyd, 448 S.W.2d 901, 904 (Mo. 1970); Hartley v. Matejka, 585 S.W.2d at 242.
Herrman Lumber Company v. Cox, 521 S.W.2d 4, 5 (Mo.App. 1975). To similar effect see Roberts v. Wayne, 624 S.W.2d 523, 525[2] (Mo.App. 1981); Hartley v. Matejka, 585 S.W.2d 240, 241[3] (Mo.App. 1979). The challenged question sought to elicit the fact that in August 1985 Rose's note was in default.
The weight of the evidence is for the trial court; we do not review his ruling on this point. Roberts v. Wayne, 624 S.W.2d 523, 525 (Mo.App. 1981); Hartley v. Matejka, 585 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Mo.App. 1979). The complaint that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice was not raised in plaintiff's motion for a new trial and is not preserved for review. Rule 78.07. Ferguson v. Boyd, 448 S.W.2d 901, 904 (Mo. 1970); Hartley v. Matejka, 585 S.W.2d at 242
The determination of negligence is a question of fact to be decided by the jury and it is for the trial court and not this court to determine whether the jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Roberts v. Wayne, 624 S.W.2d 523 (Mo.App. 1981). The facts reveal that the accident was caused by debris splashing on respondent's windshield and obstructing his vision.
Burke v. Moyer, 621 S.W.2d 75 (Mo.App. 1981). Also see Roberts v. Wayne, 624 S.W.2d 523 (Mo.App. 1981). Secondly, plaintiff contended the defendant's instruction failed to hypothesize and submit to the jury defendant's proposed construction of the language previously held ambiguous by the court.