## Facts

- On June 13, 2013, Teresa (Theresa) Beal drove toward a railroad grade crossing on Randolph Street in Higbee, Missouri.
- The collision occurred around 8:38 p.m., at “dark-lighted”/dusk conditions.
- The crossing had a railroad advance warning sign, a crossbuck, and a stop sign controlling the roadway approach.
- Beal had driven the crossing many times before and saw the stop sign and crossbuck as she approached.
- Beal did not come to a complete stop at the stop sign before entering the crossing, though she said she looked for trains.
- A Kansas City Southern train approached and struck Beal’s vehicle.
- The lead locomotive’s recording equipment captured the approach and collision; the recording reflected the train’s horn sounding and showed vegetation and parked vehicles near the right-of-way in the area.
- Beal alleged she suffered serious injuries and sued Kansas City Southern Railway Company and related entities, as well as Capital Railroad Contracting, Inc. and Ironhorse, Inc., contractors working in the area.
- Beal’s negligence claims included allegations that defendants failed to keep the right-of-way clear of visual obstructions (vegetation and parked vehicles), failed to inspect and warn, and failed to maintain or update crossing conditions and traffic control devices.
- Defendants filed a joint motion for summary judgment asserting that Beal was negligent per se for violating Missouri statutes and a local ordinance requiring a complete stop at stop signs and at railroad crossings.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding Beal negligent per se and further stating that Beal’s negligence was the sole cause of the collision and that her causation theory against defendants rested on speculation and conjecture.
- Beal appealed.

## Issues

1. May a trial court grant summary judgment on grounds not stated in the movant’s summary-judgment motion (here, that plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause and that plaintiff lacked evidence of causation by defendants) under Missouri Rule 74.04(c)(1)?
2. If the motion argued only negligence per se, was Beal required to defeat additional causation theories that defendants did not raise in their motion?

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment on a “sole cause” and “speculation and conjecture/no causation evidence” rationale that defendants did not identify as a basis for summary judgment in their motion.
- Because the judgment rested on grounds outside the motion, the summary judgment could not stand, and the appellate court did not decide the merits of negligence per se or causation.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; appellate review is essentially de novo.
- Missouri Rule 74.04(c)(1) requires a summary-judgment motion to state the legal basis for relief and to set out uncontroverted material facts with specific record citations so the parties and court know the issues being decided.
- A trial court may grant summary judgment only on the bases the movant identifies in its motion; a court may not enter judgment on a different legal theory not presented for decision.
- A nonmovant has no duty, in responding to a summary-judgment motion, to address theories the movant did not raise; the response is directed to the grounds actually asserted.
- When summary judgment is granted on an unraised ground, reversal is required because the parties were not given a fair opportunity to frame the record and arguments around that ground.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed and remanded because defendants’ summary-judgment motion relied on a negligence-per-se theory, but the circuit court granted judgment on additional causation grounds—finding Beal’s negligence the sole cause and dismissing her claims as speculative—that were not stated in the motion as required by Rule 74.04(c)(1).


Beal v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company, 527 S.W.3d 883 (2017)