# Scheibel v. Hillis

> Supreme Court of Missouri · January 12, 1976 · 531 S.W.2d 285

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684381

## Case

- **Full name:** Dennis SCHEIBEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Betty HILLIS Et Al., Defendants, Betty Hillis, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** January 12, 1976
- **Citations:** 531 S.W.2d 285; 1976 Mo. LEXIS 235
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Donnelly
- **Judges:** Seiler, Morgan, Bardgett, Finch, Holman, Henley, Donnelly
- **Cited by:** 129 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/9684381

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that negligence may be predicated on the foreseeable acts of third persons
- discussing the distinction between ultimate facts and proof of “the facts or circumstances by which the ultimate facts will be established”

## Opinion text

DONNELLY, Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion, the answer to the problem presented in this case lies in 2 Restatement, Law of Torts, Second, § 302 B. It reads as follows:
Ҥ 302 B. Risk of Intentional or Criminal Conduct
“An act or an omission may be negligent if the actor realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through the conduct of the other or a third person which is intended to cause harm, even though such conduct is criminal.”
*291 I would adopt the rule of liability stated in § 302 B, supra, and would reverse and remand the cause to permit plaintiff to seek recovery under said section. Zimmerman v. Associates Discount Corporation, 444 S.W.2d 396 (Mo.banc 1969).
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684381. Public record. Not legal advice.