Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 303.070 (2026)

Operator not subject to security and suspension provisions, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

303.070. Operator not subject to security and suspension provisions, when. — The requirements as to security and suspension in section 303.030 shall not apply:

(1) To the operator or the owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident wherein no injury or damage was caused to the person or property of anyone other than such operator or owner;

(2) To the owner of a motor vehicle if at the time of the accident the vehicle was being operated without his permission, express or implied, or was parked by a person who had been operating such motor vehicle without such permission; nor

(3) If, prior to the date that the director would otherwise suspend the license and registration or nonresident's operating privilege under section 303.030, there shall be filed with the director evidence satisfactory to him that the person who would otherwise be required to file security has been released from liability or been finally adjudicated not to be liable or has executed a duly acknowledged written agreement providing for the payment of an agreed amount in installments, with respect to all claims for injuries or damages resulting from the accident.

--------

(L. 1953 p. 569 § 303.060, A.L. 1976 H.B. 1392)

(1963) Plaintiff in this action was driving a state-owned car and had no liability insurance coverage. In order to avoid loss of his operator's license under this section he obtained a release on the form provided by the department of revenue from defendants in this action. Held that under certain circumstances a person obtaining a release from the other party is estopped to assert a cause of action against that party. Eberting v. Skinner (A.), 364 S.W.2d 829.

(1963) Release estopped from suing releasor for damages arising out of motor vehicle collision. Farmer v. Arnold (Mo.), 371 S.W.2d 265.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1955–1991 · leading case: Lugena v. Hanna, 420 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. 1967).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lugena v. Hanna, 420 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. 1967). · cites it 3× “), under which he was required to deposit security for the payment of any judgment which might be rendered against him for damages arising out of such accident and recovered in an action at law begun not later than one year after the date of the accident, or suffer suspension of…”

Eberting v. Skinner, 364 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963). · cites it 3× “634) under which he was required to deposit security for the payment of any judgment which might be rendered for damages arising out of such accident and recovered in an action at law begun not later than one year after the date of such accident, or suffer suspension of his…”

Perkins v. Perkins, 284 S.W.2d 603 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 2× “§ 303.070, or that he had in effect an automobile liability policy as stated in subsec.”

Baker v. Dir. of Revenue, 819 S.W.2d 788 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). “Petitioner filed a petition for review in the circuit court urging the court to apply § 303.070, *789 RSMo 1986, and set aside the suspension of petitioner’s driving privilege and registration due to his release from liability.”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 303.070(4) — 2 cases

Lugena v. Hanna, 420 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. 1967). “), under which he was required to deposit security for the payment of any judgment which might be rendered against him for damages arising out of such accident and recovered in an action at law begun not later than one year after the date of the accident, or suffer suspension of…”

Eberting v. Skinner, 364 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963). “634) under which he was required to deposit security for the payment of any judgment which might be rendered for damages arising out of such accident and recovered in an action at law begun not later than one year after the date of such accident, or suffer suspension of his…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.