Notes on Ballew v. Aiello (Mo. Ct. App. 1967) – Submissibility and the role of a passenger

Citation and parties: Missouri Court of Appeals, Ballew v. Aiello, 422 S.W.2d 396 (Mo. Ct. App. 1967). Appellant: Gerald M. Gilmore. Plaintiff: Ruth Ballew. Defendants: Michael Aiello and Gerald M. Gilmore. Post-trial issue on appeal: whether plaintiff made a submissible case against Gilmore. Sole brief filed by appellant.
Procedural posture: Jury-tried damage suit for personal injuries from a vehicular collision; plaintiff (Ballew) a passenger in the Orr automobile; judgment obtained against Aiello and Gilmore; appeal focuses on Gilmore’s liability.
Time and place: Afternoon of Sunday, July $11$ , $1965$ ; Route A, Stone County, Missouri. Weather described as cloudy and pleasant.

Orr automobile: owned and driven by L. V. Orr; five occupants; traveling easterly.
Aiello automobile: westbound; defendant Michael Aiello driving.
Gilmore automobile occupants: Gerald M. Gilmore in the front right seat; his wife in the rear seat; Mrs. Aiello (Aiello’s wife) also in the automobile.
Plaintiff: Ruth Ballew, a passenger in the Orr car, riding in the center of the back seat (one of four passengers in the Orr car).

Route A description: generally east–west orientation.
Roadway width: $21 ext{ to } 22 ext{ ft}$ (blacktop roadway).
Shoulders: narrow, about $12 ext{ to } 18 ext{ inches}$ on either side.
Shoulder condition: north shoulder described as rough.
Observations of the scene: all knowledgeable witnesses agreed the Aiello car ran onto the north shoulder for a considerable distance; right wheels traveled along the shoulder; the Aiello car weaved and crossed the center line several times; the Orr car remained on its right-hand (south) side whenever the Aiello car appeared to encroach.
Rock on shoulder: a rock on the north shoulder described as being about $12 ext{ to } 15 ext{ inches}$ in size; this rock is cited as a potential catalyst for Gilmore’s reaction.

Gilmore’s state: Gilmore was dozing prior to the accident (wife’s testimony: he was asleep; Aiello agreed that Gilmore was asleep before the collision).
Mrs. Gilmore’s reaction: Mrs. Gilmore became frightened and exclaimed, "Oh, Mike; oh, Mike." This alarm occurred as Aiello’s car approached or encountered the shoulder.
Gilmore’s reflexive action: Upon the frightful shout, Gilmore awake enough to “kind of woke up” and saw a rock on the shoulder, and immediately (in what was described as "just that quick") reached to his left and grabbed the steering wheel with both hands, giving it one big jerk to the left, thereby sharply turning the Aiello automobile back toward the pavement.
Aiello’s control attempt: Aiello stated that he "tried awful hard to control" the car, but that "we just hit right there in a split second." He described the collision as occurring in a very brief moment.
Orr’s account (plaintiff’s car): After the Aiello automobile returned to the blacktop, it was observed to be in a weaving maneuver, crossing and recrossing the center line on several occasions; at the time of impact, Aiello’s car was headed in a northwesterly direction, moving from the extreme left-hand (south) edge toward the right-hand (north) side of the pavement.
Relative positions at impact: The Orr automobile (eastbound) was on its right-hand side while the Aiello automobile moved toward or across the center line toward the north side of the pavement.

Orr (driver of the Orr car, plaintiff’s vehicle) testified to the Aiello car’s weaving and changing trajectory, including crossing the center line multiple times.
Mrs. Gilmore and Mrs. Aiello: present in the back seat; Mrs. Gilmore’s fright contributed to Gilmore’s apparent reaction.
The record indicates a sharp, sudden steering input by Gilmore that shifted the Aiello vehicle onto the pavement, which is central to any claim of negligent conduct by Gilmore.
Aiello’s own account centers on failed control in a split-second event, rather than deliberate or extended maneuvers.

Central question: Whether plaintiff made a submissible case against Gilmore for negligence in contributing to the collision.
Submissible case, in this context, involves proving that Gilmore, as a passenger in Aiello’s car, owed a duty to the plaintiff (or acted negligently in a way that contributed to the accident) and that his act of grabbing the steering wheel and turning left constituted a breach of that duty, which proximately caused the collision and injuries to Ballew.
The evidence includes: Gilmore’s wake-up reaction, the rock’s presence on the shoulder, Mrs. Gilmore’s alarm, and Gilmore’s act of grabbing and twisting the wheel; Aiello’s claim of attempting to control the vehicle and the weaving behavior observed by Orr.

Narrow shoulder and rough surface could exacerbate the danger of steering inputs at the edge of the roadway.
The presence of a rock on the shoulder (12–15 inches in size) presented a potential obstacle or distraction that prompted the steering reaction.
The vehicle’s trajectory was inconsistent (weaving, crossing center line), suggesting a loss of stable control or an abrupt corrective action.

The situation raises questions about the duties of a passenger-drawn intervention in imminent-accident scenarios, especially when a sudden steering input by a non-driver could endanger all occupants.
The description of the event highlights the tension between trying to avoid a remote hazard (shoulder rock) and the risk of causing a larger collision by sharp steering maneuvers.
The account emphasizes the limits of quick, reflexive decisions in high-stress driving situations and how those actions are judged in negligence analyses.

Roadway width: $21 ext{ to } 22 ext{ ft}$
Shoulders width: $12 ext{ to } 18 ext{ inches}$
Rock size on shoulder: $12 ext{ to } 15 ext{ inches}$
Date of incident: $July ext{ }$ 11 $,$ 1965
Year of appellate decision: 1967
Number of occupants in the Orr vehicle: 5
Position related details: front seat passenger (Gilmore) and rear seat occupants (Mrs. Gilmore and Mrs. Aiello)

This case centers on the scope of a passenger’s liability in contributing to an accident and how a trial court determines submissibility in a Missouri negligence context.
It reflects how trauma, sudden stimuli (alarm) and on-the-spot decisions intersect with established traffic duties (maintain control, avoid creating a new hazard).
The narrative demonstrates the challenge in apportioning fault when actions of multiple parties (driver’s attempted control, passenger’s reflex, and road hazards) interact in a fleeting event.

The collision occurred on Route A in Stone County, MO, on July 11 $,$ 1965$$, when the Aiello car (westbound) sharply steered after Gilmore’s startled reaction to a rock on the shoulder and Mrs. Gilmore’s alarm.
The Orr car (eastbound) was on its right-hand side; witnesses described Aiello’s car as weaving and crossing the center line prior to impact.
Aiello claimed he attempted to control the vehicle; witnesses described a swift, unintended shift caused by Gilmore’s action, resulting in impact with the Orr vehicle.
The central issue on appeal concerns whether Gilmore’s actions constitute a submissible cause of the collision and thus liability to the plaintiff in a damage suit.