Teschner v. Physicians Radiology

10 Citing cases

  1. Cobbins v. J.E. Dunn Constr. Co.

    Case No. 15-0031-CV-W-ODS (W.D. Mo. Oct. 28, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    (5) Loss of ConsortiumJessie Cobbins's husband, Robert Cobbins, alleged a loss of consortium claim against J.E. Dunn. Doc. #29. "[P]laintiff's right to recover for loss of consortium is derivative only, so that if the spouse has no valid claim for personal injuries, plaintiff cannot recover damages" for loss of consortium. Teschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) (citation omitted). Because Jessie Cobbins's claims against J.E. Dunn have failed, Robert Cobbins cannot recover damages for loss of consortium, which are derivative of his wife's claims.

  2. Morelock v. Highland Springs Cmty. Ass'n

    679 S.W.3d 115 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Second, even if HSCA had done so, the objection was still waived because it was not raised before the jury was discharged. Douglass, 712 S.W.2d at 374; see City of Independence for Use of Briggs v. Kerr Constr. Paving Co., 957 S.W.2d 315, 319-20 (Mo. App. 1997) (raising the matter of inconsistent verdicts in a post-trial motion is too late); see also Teschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo. App. 1988) ("Douglass no longer allows a party to seek a new trial based upon inconsistent verdicts without having first objected to the verdicts before the jury is discharged").We reject HSCA's argument that this case falls into an exception to the objection requirement in Douglass because this case involves a derivative claim, where one party’s claim fails as a matter of law if a jury rejects the co-defendant's underlying claim.

  3. Jacobs v. Bonser

    46 S.W.3d 41 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that plaintiff could not have the trial court amend the judgment to award him nominal damages after the jury was dismissed

    Jacobs maintains that Appellants' failure to challenge the consistency of the jury's verdict before it was discharged waives Appellants' right to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Appellants claim that underTeschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665 (Mo.App.E.D. 1988), their failure to challenge does not waive their right. In Teschner, this Court recognized the longstanding rule that a plaintiff's right to recover for the loss of consortium of his spouse is derivative only, so that if the spouse has no valid claim for personal injuries, the plaintiff cannot recover special damages flowing therefrom.

  4. Hardge-Harris v. Pleban

    741 F. Supp. 764 (E.D. Mo. 1990)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing relationship between false light and defamation

    The Court has found that judgment must be entered in favor of defendants on all of Peggy Hardge-Harris' claims. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Bernard Harris' claim for loss of consortium. Teschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo.App. 1988). L. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS — ANDREA HARDGE

  5. Richardson v. State Hwy. Transp. Com'n

    863 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. 1993)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that the rules for the admissibility of experiments governs the admissibility of a Simulation Model of an Automobile Collision

    Greg's loss-of-consortium claim is derivative only, so that if Jennifer had no valid claim for personal injuries, Greg cannot recover for loss of consortium. See Huff v. Trowbridge, 439 S.W.2d 493, 498 (Mo. 1969); Teschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo.App. 1988). Damages for loss of consortium are "compensatory damages" for which sovereign immunity is waived.

  6. McCoy v. Colonial Baking Co. Inc.

    572 So. 2d 850 (Miss. 1990)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that, when it comes to derivative claims, estoppel "must be applied cautiously on a ad hoc basis in order to preserve the critical component of due process—i.e., the requirement that every party have an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate an issue"

    MINNESOTA: Kohler v. Fletcher, 442 N.W.2d 169, 173 (Minn.App. 1989) ("As a husband's claim for loss of consortium is derivative only, if his wife's . . . tort claim fails, his claim for loss of consortium also fails."); Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 170 N.W.2d 865 (1969) (Because loss of consortium is derivative, the wife may recover for loss of consortium only if husband recovers in his personal-injury action; both actions also must be joined.). MISSOURI: Teschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo. App. 1988) ("Missouri has consistently followed the well-established rule that plaintiff's right to recover for loss of consortium is derivative only, so that if the spouse has no valid claim for personal injury, plaintiff cannot recover special damages flowing therefrom. . . . Both the personal injury and loss of consortium claims require a common determination."); see also Abbate v. Tortolano, 782 S.W.2d 810, 811 n. 1 (Mo. App. 1990). MONTANA: Hunsaker v. Bozeman Deaconess Foundation, 179 Mont. 305, 588 P.2d 493 (1978) ("Her cause of action is one for loss of consortium, and is derivative in nature.

  7. Marquis Fin. Servs. of Ind. Inc. v. Peet

    365 S.W.3d 256 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 13 times

    Marquis did not object to the verdict or request that the jury be returned for further deliberation before it was discharged. See Teschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo.App.1988); O'Brien v. Mobil Oil Corp., 749 S.W.2d 457, 458 (Mo.App.1988). The trial court, referring to the parties' stipulation, entered a judgment for Marquis in the amounts of $431,034.14 in actual damages, $38,793.07 in interest, and $500,000 in punitive damages.

  8. H.R.B. v. J.L.G

    913 S.W.2d 92 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that First Amendment barred child victim of sexual abuse by priest from bringing breach of fiduciary duty claim against priest, church official, and church

    The latter action is derivative only; a spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium if the other spouse has no valid claim for personal injuries. Teschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo.App.E.D. 1988). Here, the petition does not allege any direct personal injury sustained by wife; she had no valid claim of her own. Plaintiff seeks to derive his loss of consortium claim from his own injuries, not those of wife, thereby duplicating the damages he seeks in his primary claim.

  9. Burns v. Black Veatch Architects, Inc.

    854 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 27 times
    Holding foreseeability and realization of the possibility that a dangerous situation may have been created are not enough, standing alone, to establish a duty; there must also be some right or obligation to control the activity that presents a danger of injury

    Missouri has consistently followed the well-established rule that plaintiff's right to recover for loss of consortium of his spouse is derivative only, so that if the spouse has no valid claim for personal injuries, plaintiff cannot recover special damages flowing there-from.Teschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665, 667 (Mo.App. 1988). Because we hold that David Burns has no valid claim for personal injuries against the respondents herein, Alice Burns also has no valid claim.

  10. Edna Enterprises, Inc. v. Spirco Environmental, Inc.

    853 S.W.2d 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 14 times

    Douglass v. Safire, 712 S.W.2d 373, 374 (Mo. banc 1986). Edna's reliance on such cases as Bank of Kirksville v. Small, 742 S.W.2d 127 (Mo. banc 1987), Burnett v. Griffith, 739 S.W.2d 712 (Mo. banc 1987), and Teschner v. Physicians Radiology, 761 S.W.2d 665 (Mo.App. 1988), is misplaced. These cases involved verdicts which were not merely inconsistent, they were illegal.