# Johnson v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co.

> Supreme Court of Missouri · December 20, 1983 · 662 S.W.2d 237

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763056

## Case

- **Full name:** Cathy Jean JOHNSON, and Thomas Ray Boatz Johnson and Rebecca Joyce Johnson by Their Next Friend Cathy Jean Johnson, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. PACIFIC INTERMOUNTAIN EXPRESS CO., and Marlo Transport Corporation, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** December 20, 1983
- **Citations:** 662 S.W.2d 237
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Donnelly
- **Judges:** Blackmar, Rendlen, Gunn, Billings, Higgins, Welliver, Donnelly
- **Cited by:** 31 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/9763056

## Opinion text

DONNELLY, Judge,
dissenting.
Today, the Court ignores settled Missouri law and implants, again without a rationale, a scheme for redistribution of property. See Virginia D. v. Madesco Investment Corp., 648 S.W.2d 881 (Mo. banc 1983).
The principal opinion holds P.I.E. vicariously liable on the basis of a regulation adopted by the Interstate Commerce Commission and governing leases of rolling stock by a certified carrier. In so doing, it imposes a liability on P.I.E. when using leased equipment greater than its liability when operating its own equipment. I cannot agree.
The essential questions in this case are (1) whether P.I.E. is vicariously liable under the Missouri doctrine of joint enterprise; and (2) whether Mario is vicariously liable under the Missouri doctrine of joint enterprise.
In Herrell v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 324 Mo. 38, 45 , 23 S.W.2d 102, 105 (banc 1929), this Court declared “ ‘that negligence in the conduct of another will not be imputed to a party if he neither authorized such conduct, nor participated therein, nor had the right or power to control it.’ ” See *247 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 491, Comments b & c (1965).
In my view, respondents failed to make a submissible case.
I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763056. Public record. Not legal advice.