 |
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chamption v. J.B.Hunt Transport12/21/1999 rse of the employment because the accident occurred after his authorization to operate the truck ended as a result of his violation of its policy concerning the consumption of alcohol. It clarifies this point by explaining that under its policy, Employee was not authorized to drive the truck after drinking, and explains that this theory does not require consideration of section 287.120.6, and the relationship of the alcohol in causing the accident.
There are several reasons why Employer is entitled to no relief under this point. First, the authority it cites in support is an award denying compensation issued by the Commission in an unrelated case. It cites no authority holding that such a decision has precedential value here, and our own research has revealed none. It is the appellant's obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent. Shiyr v. Pinckney, 896 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Mo.App. S.D. 1995). If no authority is available, an explanation should be made for its absence, and the failure to either cite relevant authority or explain its absence justifies a conclusion that the point is abandoned. Id. In this regard, we are again mindful of Olivio, 731 S.W.2d at 397, cited in our discussion of the first point on this appeal.
Additionally, it appears from Employer 's argument under this point that it is premised on the alleged automatic termination of Employee 's employment before the trip in question began. For instance, Employer argues that " ompany policy is clear that his employment terminated and any authority he had ended with the possession and consumption of alcohol. . ."; and " he use of alcohol terminated the claimant's employment . . . and any authority he previously had to operate a company vehicle ended over twenty-four hours before the vehicular collision." Based on our discussion in point one, we are unable to conclude that the Commission erred in failing to find that there was an automatic termination of the employment in this case. This point is denied.
Under the particular facts of this case and the issues presented here, the award under review is affirmed.
Separate Opinion: None
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|