# Coit v. Bentz

> Supreme Court of Missouri · July 10, 1961 · 348 S.W.2d 941

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668967

## Case

- **Full name:** Fay C. COIT, Respondent, v. G. J. BENTZ, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** July 10, 1961
- **Citations:** 348 S.W.2d 941
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Storckman
- **Judges:** Eager, Leedy, Storckman
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668967

## Opinion text

STORCKMAN, Judge
(concurring).
In concurring I wish to point out additional authority criticizing “lack of control” as a proper assignment of specific negligence in the operation of an automobile. May v. Bradford, Mo., 348 S.W.2d 133 , calls it an “abstract submission” and cites Rosenfeld v. Peters, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 264, 269 [7, 8], wherein it is said such a submission “at least was confusing and could be construed as a roving commission.” It has been termed a submission of general negligence which gives the widest kind of roving commission. Highfill v. Brown, Mo., 340 S.W.2d 656, 663 [9]; McCarthy v. Sebben, Mo., 331 S.W.2d 601, 606 . See also Kimmich v. Berry, Mo., 319 S.W.2d 546, 547-548 ; Vogelgesang v. Waelder, Mo. App., 238 S.W.2d 849, 856 [8]; and State ex rel. Burger v. Trimble, 331 Mo. 748 , 55 S.W.2d 422, 423 [2].
The Bar should be acquainted with the hazard which the continued use of this submission presents.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9668967. Public record. Not legal advice.