{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"negligence","label":"Negligence","description":null,"totalCases":231,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":18},{"year":2019,"count":29},{"year":2020,"count":35},{"year":2021,"count":22},{"year":2022,"count":24},{"year":2023,"count":27},{"year":2024,"count":40},{"year":2025,"count":33},{"year":2026,"count":3}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38943:2026-01-12","opinionId":"86c3bbfe-b6a8-5c30-96cb-abc609e0ae93","slug":"kac-by-and-through-ashley-acosta-next-friend-and-michael-crites-jr-appell-d38943","caseName":"K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants\nv.\nMISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38943","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-12","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellants K.A.C. and Michael Crites, Jr. sued the Missouri State Highway Patrol for wrongful death after a pursued driver collided with and killed Connor Crites. The trial court granted summary judgment for MSHP, finding Appellants failed to establish proximate cause. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Appellants did not produce sufficient facts to prove MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, consistent with Supreme Court precedent that proximate cause cannot be based on speculation in police pursuit cases.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","wrongful-death","governmental-immunity","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229813","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kac-by-and-through-ashley-acosta-next-friend-and-michael-crites-jr-appell-d38943","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112983:2025-12-09","opinionId":"95ea2f52-be7b-5264-b277-aa14672bf105","slug":"michael-f-shanahan-jr-appellant-v-spencer-fane-llp-respondent-112983","caseName":"Michael F. Shanahan, Jr., Appellant, vs. Spencer Fane, LLP, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112983","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael F. Shanahan, Jr. sued Spencer Fane LLP, alleging legal malpractice, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent nondisclosure related to his investment in a car dealership. Shanahan claimed Spencer Fane misrepresented his GM approval status and failed to disclose his lack of approval. The trial court granted summary judgment for Spencer Fane on all claims, which Shanahan appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Shanahan failed to produce evidence of an attorney-client relationship, an affirmative misrepresentation, or a duty to speak.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence","contracts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228376","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-f-shanahan-jr-appellant-v-spencer-fane-llp-respondent-112983","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87919:2025-11-25","opinionId":"33e84e13-8229-50f7-802e-1f666232ad10","slug":"tina-hursman-v-the-city-of-sedalia-missouri-d87919","caseName":"Tina Hursman\nvs. \nThe City of Sedalia, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD87919","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Tina Hursman sued the City of Sedalia for injuries sustained after falling on a city sidewalk. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the City, finding the sidewalk was not a dangerous condition and was open and obvious. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the sidewalk constituted a dangerous condition, whether it was open and obvious, and whether the step caused Hursman's fall or the City had notice of the condition.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227758","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tina-hursman-v-the-city-of-sedalia-missouri-d87919","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38494:2025-08-01","opinionId":"1ccd8ab1-7bb1-5390-8118-5fa3f426774b","slug":"julia-ann-richardson-plaintiff-appellant-v-arthur-hawes-md-and-ferrell-du-d38494","caseName":"JULIA ANN RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nARTHUR HAWES, M.D. and FERRELL-DUNCAN CLINIC, INC., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38494","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Julia Ann Richardson sued Dr. Arthur Hawes and Ferrell-Duncan Clinic, Inc. for medical negligence related to cosmetic surgeries. A jury found in favor of the defendants. On appeal, Richardson contended the trial court erred by admitting certain demonstrative exhibits during the defendants' expert testimony, arguing they contained inadmissible hearsay and were not properly authenticated. The Southern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the admission of the exhibits and concluding that Richardson failed to preserve one argument and did not demonstrate prejudice for the other.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/julia-ann-richardson-plaintiff-appellant-v-arthur-hawes-md-and-ferrell-du-d38494","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113033:2025-07-29","opinionId":"b9b94239-593a-591a-8a5a-901d97d7d731","slug":"jn-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-colleen-nentwig-and-colleen-nen-113033","caseName":"J.N., a Minor, by and through his Next Friend, Colleen Nentwig and Colleen Nentwig, Individually, Appellants, and Ryne Dobson, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Dale Anderson, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113033","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"J.N. and Colleen Nentwig sued Dr. Dale Anderson for wrongful death, alleging medical negligence after Ryne Dobson killed his stepfather, Kevin Nentwig. Appellants claimed Dr. Anderson failed to warn of Dobson's danger or negligently prescribed medication. On appeal, Appellants argued the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on a novel theory of duty for psychiatrists to third parties regarding medication-induced harm. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Dr. Anderson, declining to recognize this new duty because Dobson's violent conduct was not reasonably foreseeable.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222617","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jn-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-colleen-nentwig-and-colleen-nen-113033","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38390:2025-07-23","opinionId":"33054461-7ade-5356-8170-08ec2e789d44","slug":"ao-individually-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-dba-co-d38390","caseName":"A.O., Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nLESTER E. COX MEDICAL CENTERS, d/b/a COX MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH, and COXHEALTH, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38390","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"A.O. sued Lester E. Cox Medical Centers and CoxHealth for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and failure to protect, after a certified medical assistant allegedly sexually assaulted her during an allergic reaction observation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding A.O. failed to present competent medical expert testimony to establish the standard of care for her medical negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that A.O.'s claims required medical expert testimony, which she failed to provide, and that summary judgment for one defendant properly disposed of claims against all.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ao-individually-plaintiff-appellant-v-lester-e-cox-medical-centers-dba-co-d38390","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87521:2025-07-01","opinionId":"b6f38c8d-45f8-5d56-ac9c-be802e7efd5c","slug":"rose-howland-v-truman-medical-center-inc-dba-university-health-lakewood-m-d87521","caseName":"Rose Howland\nvs.\nTruman Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a University Health Lakewood Medical Center","caseNumber":"WD87521","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rose Howland sued Truman Medical Center, alleging co-workers improperly accessed her patient records, discovered her COVID-19 vaccination status, and subsequently harassed and demoted her, forcing her resignation. The trial court dismissed most claims for lack of standing and a negligence per se claim for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Howland's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, negligence, and negligent training and supervision, concluding she had sufficiently alleged standing. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence per se claim, holding that HIPAA and HITECH do not provide a private right of action. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","employment-law","negligence","contracts","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221675","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rose-howland-v-truman-medical-center-inc-dba-university-health-lakewood-m-d87521","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112532:2025-06-24","opinionId":"1ceb1c58-5682-5f5c-841d-576eadb355a4","slug":"mark-mccostlin-and-karen-mccostlin-appellants-v-monsanto-company-responde-112532","caseName":"Mark McCostlin, and Karen McCostlin, Appellants, vs. Monsanto Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112532","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark and Karen McCostlin appealed the trial court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of Monsanto Company in their strict liability and negligence action, alleging Mr. McCostlin's exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The McCostlins contended their expert testimony established a submissible case on causation, the trial court misinterpreted evidence, and erred in denying a motion to recall an expert and sustaining an objection during redirect. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the McCostlins' causation expert failed to demonstrate a causal connection, and the trial court did not err in its procedural and evidentiary rulings.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-mccostlin-and-karen-mccostlin-appellants-v-monsanto-company-responde-112532","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112874:2025-06-17","opinionId":"8bbdc57e-8ed8-59ee-bceb-5cc81e2533e2","slug":"kyle-d-becker-appellant-v-thomas-m-schenk-respondent-112874","caseName":"Kyle D. Becker, Appellant, vs. Thomas M. Schenk, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112874","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kyle D. Becker sued Thomas M. Schenk for personal injuries sustained during an amateur ice hockey game, specifically a broken wrist. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Schenk, concluding Becker had assumed the risk of injury. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the judgment, holding that Becker expressly assumed the risk of breaking a bone by signing a clear and unambiguous liability waiver. The court also found that Becker impliedly assumed the inherent risks of playing ice hockey.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","summary-judgment","negligence","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221418","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kyle-d-becker-appellant-v-thomas-m-schenk-respondent-112874","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86697:2025-05-20","opinionId":"a6d944b0-8d34-59d6-9f12-bc626d100210","slug":"midwest-trust-co-as-conservator-for-kp-v-united-parcel-service-inc-d86697","caseName":"Midwest Trust Co. as Conservator for K.P.\nvs. \nUnited Parcel Service, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD86697","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Midwest Trust Co., as conservator for K.P., sued United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) for in utero injuries K.P. sustained in a car accident caused by a UPS driver. The jury awarded K.P. $65 million in compensatory damages on a vicarious liability negligence claim, and the circuit court added prejudgment interest. UPS appealed, challenging the admission of evidence regarding the driver's prior cocaine use and the award of prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary ruling and no error in the prejudgment interest award.","primaryTopic":"auto-accident","topicSlugs":["auto-accident","negligence","evidence","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/midwest-trust-co-as-conservator-for-kp-v-united-parcel-service-inc-d86697","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38276:2025-05-14","opinionId":"eec4b38f-9027-5b57-8f68-55ccc471d43a","slug":"terry-metcalf-plaintiff-appellant-v-florence-lorene-beard-et-al-defendant-d38276","caseName":"TERRY METCALF, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nFLORENCE LORENE BEARD, et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38276","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"Terry Metcalf sued four government employees in their individual and official capacities for various torts, including malicious prosecution, negligence, and tortious interference, stemming from an audit and attempted prosecution related to his service on a road district board. The trial court dismissed all claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Metcalf's claims were barred by sovereign immunity, official immunity, and the public duty doctrine, as he failed to establish any waiver of immunity or sufficiently plead exceptions.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","negligence","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/terry-metcalf-plaintiff-appellant-v-florence-lorene-beard-et-al-defendant-d38276","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86389:2025-04-01","opinionId":"1f1291d8-5dc8-5a49-b733-3e8a0411fafe","slug":"christopher-hanshaw-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-d86389","caseName":"Christopher Hanshaw\nvs.\nCrown Equipment Corp., Et Al.","caseNumber":"WD86389","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Hanshaw sued Crown Equipment Corporation after a forklift accident resulted in the amputation of his leg, alleging defective design. The circuit court excluded Hanshaw's expert witness, finding him unqualified and his opinions unreliable, and subsequently granted summary judgment to Crown. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the expert was qualified and his opinions regarding the lack of a door as a design defect were reliable. The case was remanded for further proceedings on Hanshaw's product defect claims.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","evidence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-hanshaw-v-crown-equipment-corp-et-al-d86389","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87371:2025-04-01","opinionId":"93c368b1-17b3-5ec0-9f44-6751d65b2f02","slug":"carrie-l-gruhn-and-izeck-k-mccown-by-next-friend-carrie-l-gruhn-v-joseph-d87371","caseName":"Carrie L. Gruhn and Izeck K. McCown, By Next Friend Carrie L. Gruhn\nvs.\nJoseph G. Schwermer, and Joshua R. Elam","caseNumber":"WD87371","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Carrie L. Gruhn and Izeck K. McCown, mother and child of a decedent, brought wrongful-death claims against Joshua Elam, a passenger in an ATV accident that killed the decedent. The circuit court dismissed the claim against Elam for failure to state a claim, finding no duty was pleaded. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs' amended petition failed to allege facts establishing Elam voluntarily undertook a duty to protect the decedent under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323. The court also found the appeal was timely despite an initial interlocutory judgment.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","wrongful-death","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218954","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carrie-l-gruhn-and-izeck-k-mccown-by-next-friend-carrie-l-gruhn-v-joseph-d87371","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38532:2025-04-01","opinionId":"c5ee6ccb-03ae-5b61-be0e-0ab86237012b","slug":"robert-and-susan-ferguson-et-al-plaintiffs-respondents-v-city-of-sunrise-d38532","caseName":"ROBERT AND SUSAN FERGUSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nCITY OF SUNRISE BEACH, MISSOURI, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38532","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert and Susan Ferguson, along with other property owners, sued the City of Sunrise Beach for nuisance and negligence, alleging property damage from improperly treated wastewater discharged from the City's facility. The trial court denied the City's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a jury found for the property owners. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case, holding that inverse condemnation is the exclusive remedy for property damage claims against a public entity with eminent domain authority, even when framed as tort claims. The court allowed the property owners to amend their petition to assert inverse condemnation claims.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","negligence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=219073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-and-susan-ferguson-et-al-plaintiffs-respondents-v-city-of-sunrise-d38532","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112785:2025-03-25","opinionId":"102d1198-943c-57f5-ad3a-5d18c62c458e","slug":"joseph-simmons-iii-et-al-appellants-v-keat-properties-llc-et-al-responden-112785","caseName":"Joseph Simmons III, et al., Appellants, vs. Keat Properties, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112785","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Plaintiffs, who were injured when a motorist drove into a Starbucks storefront, sued Keat Properties, LLC, McKnight Investors, LLC, and Starbucks Corporation for negligence and premises liability. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed, holding that the defendants owed no duty to protect invitees from unforeseeable third-party negligence, as a single prior incident ten years earlier was not sufficiently numerous or recent to establish foreseeability. The court also found that the parking lot's configuration did not, by itself, constitute a dangerous condition.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joseph-simmons-iii-et-al-appellants-v-keat-properties-llc-et-al-responden-112785","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100711:2025-03-18","opinionId":"d1bae935-f085-58bc-8660-0562c1e4adcd","slug":"melissa-moody-respondent-v-dynamic-fitness-management-ltd-appellant-100711","caseName":"Melissa Moody, Respondent, vs. Dynamic Fitness Management, LTD., Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100711","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Melissa Moody sued Dynamic Fitness Management Ltd. for negligence after suffering a herniated disc during a weightlifting class. A jury found Dynamic 30% at fault and awarded Moody $300,000. Dynamic appealed the judgment, arguing the circuit court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and new trial, and in allowing adverse inference admissions. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, concluding Dynamic failed to preserve most of its claims of error by not filing a JNOV motion or making contemporaneous objections, and its argument regarding the verdict director lacked merit.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-moody-respondent-v-dynamic-fitness-management-ltd-appellant-100711","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112455:2025-03-04","opinionId":"076b9004-c1c5-5628-a02b-af954922a61d","slug":"rochelle-ameer-appellant-v-lyft-inc-respondent-and-christopher-d-morgan-a-112455","caseName":"Rochelle Ameer, Appellant, vs. Lyft, Inc., Respondent, and Christopher D. Morgan, and Ajane Barnes, Defendants.","caseNumber":"ED112455","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rochelle Ameer appealed the dismissal of her product liability and negligence claims against Lyft, Inc., after her son, a Lyft driver, was killed during a carjacking initiated through the Lyft App. The trial court had dismissed the claims for failure to state a cause of action, finding the App was not a product and no duty existed. The appellate court reversed, holding that a mobile ridesharing application can be considered a product for product liability purposes and that the petition adequately alleged Lyft's duty to protect against third-party criminal acts, remanding for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","negligence","wrongful-death","other","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218057","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rochelle-ameer-appellant-v-lyft-inc-respondent-and-christopher-d-morgan-a-112455","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100512:2025-03-04","opinionId":"73731faf-5735-5c83-b90d-345d6b3332d8","slug":"presley-karlin-respondent-v-uatp-springfield-llc-dba-urban-air-springfiel-100512","caseName":"Presley Karlin, Respondent, vs. UATP Springfield, LLC d/b/a Urban Air Springfield, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100512","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Presley Karlin sued Urban Air Springfield for negligence after sustaining injuries at its trampoline park. Urban Air moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by Karlin's mother, which the circuit court overruled. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the case with instructions to sustain Urban Air's motion to compel arbitration. The Court held that challenges to the validity or scope of an arbitration agreement, when it contains a delegation clause and the challenges are not specific to that clause, must be resolved by an arbitrator.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/presley-karlin-respondent-v-uatp-springfield-llc-dba-urban-air-springfiel-100512","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100702:2025-02-28","opinionId":"04e0f7af-12b4-5099-91e1-2c6ed68b5081","slug":"dj-by-and-through-his-next-friend-rj-respondent-v-first-student-inc-appel-100702","caseName":"D.J., by and through his Next Friend, R.J., Respondent, vs. First Student, Inc., Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100702","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-02-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"D.J., a fourth-grader, was struck by a hit-and-run driver after being dropped off by a First Student, Inc. bus at an intersection. D.J. sued First Student, alleging negligence for failing to provide the substitute bus driver with the correct route information, which resulted in D.J. being dropped off at an unsafe location. The jury found in favor of D.J. on this claim, but the Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the judgment, holding that the criminal act of the third-party driver was an intervening and superseding cause, breaking the chain of proximate causation.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dj-by-and-through-his-next-friend-rj-respondent-v-first-student-inc-appel-100702","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38624:2025-02-20","opinionId":"c91a5f93-752e-5146-9280-824ba9427b8d","slug":"the-state-of-missouri-ex-rel-springfield-r-xii-school-district-relator-v-d38624","caseName":"THE STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel.\nSPRINGFIELD R-XII SCHOOL DISTRICT, Relator\nvs.\nTHE HONORABLE JOSHUA BOYD CHRISTENSEN, CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38624","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Springfield R-XII School District sought a writ of mandamus after the trial court denied its motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a minor plaintiff alleging sexual assault on school premises. The plaintiff claimed the lack of surveillance cameras in a \"blind spot\" stairwell constituted a dangerous condition, thereby waiving the school district's sovereign immunity. The appellate court issued a permanent writ of mandamus, holding that the alleged lack of cameras and failure to supervise did not constitute a physical defect in property necessary to waive sovereign immunity under Section 537.600.1(2). The court directed the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's petition with prejudice.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","premises-liability","negligence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217674","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/the-state-of-missouri-ex-rel-springfield-r-xii-school-district-relator-v-d38624","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112826:2025-02-18","opinionId":"cf1b6a3e-fef0-5b9e-ac40-a45c93419c83","slug":"joanne-knight-appellant-v-huilin-li-md-sam-bishara-md-and-st-louis-cardio-112826","caseName":"Joanne Knight, Appellant, v. Huilin Li, M.D., Sam Bishara, M.D., and St. Louis Cardiology Consultants, Ltd., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112826","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Joanne Knight filed a wrongful death claim against Dr. Huilin Li, Dr. Sam Bishara, and St. Louis Cardiology Consultants, Ltd. (SLCC) following her husband's death from cardiac arrest. The trial court granted summary judgment for all respondents, striking Knight's expert witness against Dr. Li and finding no physician-patient relationship with Dr. Bishara and SLCC. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in striking the expert and that material questions of fact remained regarding the physician-patient relationship.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","evidence","summary-judgment","wrongful-death","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217577","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joanne-knight-appellant-v-huilin-li-md-sam-bishara-md-and-st-louis-cardio-112826","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112410:2025-02-11","opinionId":"118b8dac-96d4-52b1-88f9-32384b867427","slug":"john-l-durnell-respondent-v-monsanto-company-appellant-112410","caseName":"John L. Durnell, Respondent, vs. Monsanto Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112410","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"John L. Durnell sued Monsanto Company, alleging that exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, asserting claims including strict liability failure to warn. A jury found in favor of Durnell on the strict liability failure to warn claim, awarding $1.25 million in compensatory damages. Monsanto appealed, arguing that Durnell's claim was both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the state-law claim was not preempted by FIFRA.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","other","negligence","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217395","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-l-durnell-respondent-v-monsanto-company-appellant-112410","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112561:2025-01-28","opinionId":"40b7eddc-905f-5299-8f85-fd2c68eb8ff9","slug":"cecil-j-mcfall-appellant-v-david-e-hogan-respondent-112561","caseName":"Cecil J. McFall, Appellant, vs. David E. Hogan, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112561","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cecil J. McFall (Plaintiff) obtained a default judgment against David E. Hogan (Defendant) in a negligence action. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to set aside the default judgment, believing the service date on the return was 2023, making the default judgment premature. The appellate court reversed, finding that the return of service, when read in conjunction with the notary public's date, clearly indicated service occurred in 2022, meaning the default judgment was not premature. The case was remanded for reentry of the default judgment.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217016","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cecil-j-mcfall-appellant-v-david-e-hogan-respondent-112561","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38331:2025-01-17","opinionId":"18f405e6-0ffc-52e8-a05d-473b9a6117cf","slug":"jane-doe-a-minor-by-next-friend-tn-appellant-v-first-baptist-church-of-pi-d38331","caseName":"JANE DOE, a minor by next friend, T.N., Appellant\nvs.\nFIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PIERCE CITY, MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38331","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jane Doe, a minor, sued First Baptist Church of Pierce City (FBC) for negligence, alleging sexual assaults suffered while participating in FBC's youth ministries program. The circuit court granted summary judgment for FBC, concluding that the First Amendment barred the negligence claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the First Amendment prohibits courts from entertaining negligence claims against religious organizations that would require excessive entanglement in religious doctrine, policy, and administration. The court also found that FBC was not required to plead the First Amendment as an affirmative defense, as it negates an element of the plaintiff's prima facie case.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","other","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jane-doe-a-minor-by-next-friend-tn-appellant-v-first-baptist-church-of-pi-d38331","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112690:2024-12-31","opinionId":"8c4fe192-5684-5eec-8339-c070a527d382","slug":"mary-beth-fryman-appellant-v-the-board-of-regents-of-southeast-missouri-s-112690","caseName":"Mary Beth Fryman, Appellant, v. The Board of Regents of Southeast Missouri State University, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112690","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-31","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mary Beth Fryman sued The Board of Regents of Southeast Missouri State University for premises liability and negligence after falling on stairs on the Board's property. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Board, finding it immune from liability because Fryman's injury was not caused by an alleged dangerous condition of the stairs. The appellate court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding causation, as Fryman's expert opined the stairs were defectively designed and caused her fall, despite her testimony of tripping on her own feet.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","governmental-immunity","summary-judgment","negligence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mary-beth-fryman-appellant-v-the-board-of-regents-of-southeast-missouri-s-112690","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86960:2024-12-17","opinionId":"92abf841-7d2c-5e82-ba20-1bfdc450ef49","slug":"willie-roark-v-kc-pet-project-d86960","caseName":"Willie Roark\nvs.\nKC Pet Project","caseNumber":"WD86960","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-12-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"Willie Roark sued KC Pet Project for negligence after being bitten by a dog, alleging the organization failed to take adequate animal control enforcement action. A jury awarded Roark $200,000 in compensatory damages. On appeal, KC Pet Project raised arguments concerning the public duty doctrine, lack of contractual privity, and errors in jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that KC Pet Project failed to preserve any of its claims of error for appellate review by not raising them in timely motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or by explicitly stating \"no objection\" to the jury instruction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","negligence","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/willie-roark-v-kc-pet-project-d86960","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112272:2024-12-10","opinionId":"e84df2dc-4862-538e-8c71-663dad7d5664","slug":"douglas-overfield-respondent-v-bnsf-railway-company-appellant-112272","caseName":"Douglas Overfield, Respondent, v. BNSF Railway Company, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112272","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Douglas Overfield, a locomotive engineer, sued BNSF Railway Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for injuries sustained when his reflective vest snagged on a door handle. A jury awarded Overfield $2.75 million. BNSF appealed, arguing the verdict director was improper due to disjunctive bases lacking substantial evidence and constituting a roving commission, and that the trial court erred in refusing a withdrawal instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no instructional error as the verdict director was supported by substantial evidence and was not a roving commission, and the withdrawal instruction was properly refused.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-overfield-respondent-v-bnsf-railway-company-appellant-112272","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112075:2024-12-03","opinionId":"027173e4-26ee-52f5-bbca-aa0b400b6456","slug":"sharlean-gordon-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112075","caseName":"Sharlean Gordon, Appellant, vs. Monsanto Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112075","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-03","year":2024,"display_summary":"Sharlean Gordon sued Monsanto Company, alleging that her prolonged exposure to Roundup and its ingredient glyphosate caused her to develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, asserting claims of strict liability product defect, strict liability failure to warn, and negligence. Following a jury verdict in favor of Monsanto, and the trial court's denial of Gordon's motion for a new trial, Gordon appealed. The Eastern District of Missouri affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding the exclusion of a scientific publication, the restriction of expert testimony, or the admission of foreign regulatory documents.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","personal-injury","negligence","other","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215135","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sharlean-gordon-appellant-v-monsanto-company-respondent-112075","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112829:2024-11-26","opinionId":"f1383f80-91b2-5c45-a56b-3e277fefb58b","slug":"stacy-a-albright-appellant-v-union-electric-company-respondent-112829","caseName":"Stacy A. Albright, Appellant, v. Union Electric Company, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112829","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Stacy Albright sued Union Electric Company for negligence and breach of contract after a fire damaged his home, alleging UE failed to turn off electrical power as requested. The circuit court granted summary judgment for UE, concluding Albright could not provide substantial evidence that electricity caused the fire. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that UE's summary judgment motion failed to meet its initial burden under Rule 74.04 by merely reciting Albright's petition allegations and an interrogatory response, thus the burden never shifted to Albright.","primaryTopic":"summary-judgment","topicSlugs":["summary-judgment","civil-procedure","negligence","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214924","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stacy-a-albright-appellant-v-union-electric-company-respondent-112829","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38222:2024-11-25","opinionId":"2ac7c6b7-0b83-5d8c-8bf7-d17c857b5d00","slug":"as-and-ks-individually-and-as-next-friends-of-minor-js-appellants-v-willa-d38222","caseName":"A.S. and K.S., individually and as next friends of minor J.S., Appellants\nvs.\nWILLARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MATT TEETER, AMANDA HAMBEY, MISSY LUCAS, and DOES #1-20, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38222","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"A minor student, J.S., sustained severe head injuries on school grounds. Her parents, A.S. and K.S., sued Willard Public Schools and several individual employees for negligence, premises liability, and emotional distress. The circuit court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the claims barred by sovereign and official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the petition did not plead facts sufficient to waive sovereign immunity under the dangerous condition exception, nor did it establish that the individual employees failed to perform a ministerial duty, thus upholding official immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","premises-liability","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/as-and-ks-individually-and-as-next-friends-of-minor-js-appellants-v-willa-d38222","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38164:2024-10-29","opinionId":"b07e28bb-3704-5add-b706-74df0d99db44","slug":"lucas-holterman-appellant-v-laverne-copeland-respondent-d38164","caseName":"LUCAS HOLTERMAN, Appellant\nvs.\nLAVERNE COPELAND, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38164","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-29","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lucas Holterman, an employee of Holterman Logging, was severely injured by a falling dead tree while working on land owned by Laverne Copeland. Holterman sued Copeland on theories of premises liability and inherently dangerous activity. The trial court granted summary judgment for Copeland, finding that she did not retain control of the property and logging was not inherently dangerous. The appellate court affirmed, holding that logging is not an inherently dangerous activity as a matter of law and that Copeland owed no duty of care under premises liability due to the independent contractor rule.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","other","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lucas-holterman-appellant-v-laverne-copeland-respondent-d38164","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85680:2024-10-22","opinionId":"df7a4ab0-9fe2-5ff3-85bd-d18492720f13","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-nancy-j-royal-d85680","caseName":"State of Missouri \nvs.\nNancy J. Royal","caseNumber":"WD85680","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-10-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Nancy J. Royal appealed her convictions for involuntary manslaughter, child neglect resulting in death, child abuse, and child endangerment, stemming from the death of her son due to untreated diabetes and the severe neglect and lack of education of her daughter. Royal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for child neglect and abuse, and argued that her convictions for involuntary manslaughter and child neglect violated Missouri's cumulative punishment statute. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in any of Royal's points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","negligence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-nancy-j-royal-d85680","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111340:2024-10-01","opinionId":"1ba54e57-263e-5b64-b41a-91e7b6303ab3","slug":"jon-yust-et-al-appellant-v-fasterhouse-et-al-respondent-111340","caseName":"Jon Yust, et al., Appellant, v. Fasterhouse, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111340","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"The Yusts and Investors Title Company appealed the trial court's orders granting a new trial on its own motion and subsequently granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for FasterHouse LLC and Rebecca Moran. The appellate court reversed the JNOV, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction after the notice of appeal was filed. It also reversed the new trial order because the trial court failed to specify the grounds for granting it, as required by Rule 78.03, and the presumption of error under Rule 84.05(c) was unrebutted. The case was remanded for further proceedings, and the Yusts were awarded attorney's fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","contracts","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jon-yust-et-al-appellant-v-fasterhouse-et-al-respondent-111340","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38169:2024-08-12","opinionId":"6f2345f5-e7f5-5f0b-9585-4a53b91c41fc","slug":"brantley-atchley-and-becky-tittle-as-survivors-of-deceased-kayla-atchley-d38169","caseName":"BRANTLEY ATCHLEY and BECKY TITTLE, as survivors of Deceased Kayla Atchley, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nMISSOURI HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and APEX PAVING COMPANY, Respondents-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38169","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants Brantley Atchley and Becky Jo Tittle, survivors of Kayla Atchley, appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Apex Paving Company. Their negligence claim alleged that a shoulder drop-off on Highway 153 caused their daughter's fatal car accident, and Apex owed a common law duty to keep the roadway safe. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Apex had no common law duty as it had not yet mobilized to the site or performed any work in the area of the alleged defect. The court also denied the argument that summary judgment improperly limited the Appellants' theory of the case.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brantley-atchley-and-becky-tittle-as-survivors-of-deceased-kayla-atchley-d38169","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111979:2024-07-23","opinionId":"0d9ff248-959b-5de3-bf85-e1197e79a6f9","slug":"danny-l-dannenhauer-and-the-danny-l-dannenhauer-family-trust-by-and-throu-111979","caseName":"Danny L. Dannenhauer, and the Danny L. Dannenhauer Family Trust, By and Through Brenda D. Gunlock, Trustee, Appellants, vs. Philip P. Briscoe, Personal Representative of Estate of John W. Briscoe, Briscoe and Brannon, and Wasinger Parham, L.C., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111979","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Danny L. Dannenhauer and the Dannenhauer Family Trust sued attorney John Briscoe for legal malpractice related to a real estate transaction and Wasinger Parham for failing to advise them of the potential malpractice claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for Briscoe, finding the statute of limitations had expired, and later granted JNOV for Wasinger Parham. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment against Briscoe, holding that the legal malpractice claim accrued later than the trial court determined, making the suit timely. As a result, the court affirmed the JNOV for Wasinger Parham and remanded the case for adjudication of the claims against Briscoe.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209916","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/danny-l-dannenhauer-and-the-danny-l-dannenhauer-family-trust-by-and-throu-111979","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38100:2024-07-17","opinionId":"4fe8cb62-3cc8-5be6-a631-9bbff4562719","slug":"david-raymond-cady-et-al-appellants-v-city-of-malden-missouri-a-municipal-d38100","caseName":"DAVID RAYMOND CADY, ET AL, Appellants\nv.\nCITY OF MALDEN, MISSOURI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38100","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-17","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Raymond Cady's next friends sued the City of Malden, a dispatcher, and an officer for wrongful death and negligent supervision after Cady committed suicide in jail. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the duties of monitoring a prisoner and walking a prisoner to a cell were discretionary, not ministerial, and therefore the official immunity doctrine applied.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","wrongful-death","negligence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-raymond-cady-et-al-appellants-v-city-of-malden-missouri-a-municipal-d38100","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111901:2024-07-16","opinionId":"b4b12043-a0d1-5f7e-bacd-0f594351fd1a","slug":"andrew-wilkinson-respondent-v-stanley-fastening-systems-lp-appellant-111901","caseName":"Andrew Wilkinson, Respondent, vs. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111901","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Andrew Wilkinson sued Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. for products liability after a pneumatic stapler manufactured by Stanley fired and struck him in the eye, leading to its surgical removal. The trial court entered judgment following a jury verdict for Wilkinson, awarding $11 million in noneconomic damages. Stanley appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not granting a mistrial after Wilkinson's counsel repeatedly referred to Stanley as a \"billion-dollar company\" in violation of an order in limine. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding the trial court abused its discretion because the improper statements were not cured and prejudiced the outcome, as evidenced by the large verdict.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209775","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andrew-wilkinson-respondent-v-stanley-fastening-systems-lp-appellant-111901","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37969:2024-07-10","opinionId":"76c53d8e-03f3-5ff1-9b2c-94a1e7857f43","slug":"gregory-frost-respondent-v-pcrmc-medical-group-inc-dba-phelps-health-medi-d37969","caseName":"GREGORY FROST, Respondent\nvs.\nPCRMC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., D/B/A PHELPS HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37969","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Gregory Frost sued PCRMC Medical Group, alleging negligence in his opioid treatment led to addiction. A jury awarded Frost compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, Medical Group challenged the application of the statute of limitations, the admissibility of certain evidence, the negligence verdict director, and the sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for actual damages but reversed the punitive damages award, remanding the case for an amended judgment.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209594","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gregory-frost-respondent-v-pcrmc-medical-group-inc-dba-phelps-health-medi-d37969","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111786:2024-06-25","opinionId":"84ebd626-67cd-5e03-a2ca-b54f7c7ed4d8","slug":"melissa-moody-respondent-v-dynamic-fitness-management-ltd-appellant-111786","caseName":"Melissa Moody, Respondent, vs. Dynamic Fitness Management, Ltd., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111786","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Melissa Moody sued Dynamic Fitness Management, Ltd. (DFM) for negligence after she sustained a herniated disc while performing a push press during a group weightlifting class. A jury found DFM 30% at fault, awarding Moody $1 million in damages. DFM appealed, arguing that Moody's claim was barred by the doctrine of implied primary assumption of the risk. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the risk of injury was inherent to the activity and known to Moody, and DFM did not increase that inherent risk.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209177","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-moody-respondent-v-dynamic-fitness-management-ltd-appellant-111786","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111487:2024-06-25","opinionId":"e0c98325-25a0-5ea3-91cd-58cf17df7e0f","slug":"dj-by-and-through-his-next-friend-rj-respondent-v-first-student-inc-appel-111487","caseName":"D.J., by and through his next friend, R.J., Respondent, vs. First Student, Inc., Appellant, and Tomika L. Richardson, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED111487","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"D.J., a child, was struck by a passing car after exiting a school bus operated by First Student, Inc. The jury found First Student directly negligent for failing to provide its substitute driver with sufficient route information, awarding D.J. $1.3 million, but found for First Student and the driver on a claim regarding a reasonably safe drop-off location. First Student appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that First Student owed an independent duty to provide route information, the passing car's actions were a foreseeable contributing cause, and neither the McGinnis doctrine nor the McHaffie rule precluded liability.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210479","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dj-by-and-through-his-next-friend-rj-respondent-v-first-student-inc-appel-111487","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112259:2024-06-25","opinionId":"0d8ce11e-ef1b-5f57-bd5e-c3d8ec913b8f","slug":"anne-marie-campbell-et-al-appellants-v-baxter-international-inc-et-al-res-112259","caseName":"Anne Marie Campbell, et al., Appellants, vs. Baxter International, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112259","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Anne Marie Campbell and other plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Plaintiffs had sued the defendants for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision related to an employee's tortious and criminal acts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the motion for judgment on the pleadings was timely and properly considered without converting it to a summary judgment motion. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead proximate cause, as the alleged injuries were too far removed from the defendants' claimed negligence, particularly given the employee's acts were outside the scope of employment.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209179","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anne-marie-campbell-et-al-appellants-v-baxter-international-inc-et-al-res-112259","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111709:2024-06-11","opinionId":"3f35aa53-2e55-5d13-9425-4c9a6faef196","slug":"debbie-pyzyk-plaintiffrespondent-v-gateway-psychiatric-group-llc-gordon-r-111709","caseName":"Debbie Pyzyk, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gateway Psychiatric Group, LLC & Gordon Robinson, M.D., Defendants/Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111709","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Debbie Pyzyk sued Gateway Psychiatric Group and Dr. Gordon Robinson for wrongful death following her daughter K.P.'s death, alleging medical malpractice. The jury found in favor of Pyzyk, awarding compensatory damages. On appeal, Appellants challenged a verdict directing instruction, the admission of expert testimony, the admission of K.P.'s death certificate, and the submission of aggravating circumstances damages. The Eastern District of Missouri affirmed the trial court's judgment, denying all points on appeal.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","wrongful-death","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208895","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/debbie-pyzyk-plaintiffrespondent-v-gateway-psychiatric-group-llc-gordon-r-111709","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:parent-208735","opinionId":"fd27e20c-fa0f-5a67-9267-b027de4b8e72","slug":"state-ex-rel-michael-j-love-relator-v-the-honorable-heather-r-cunningham-100197","caseName":"State ex rel. Michael J. Love, Relator, vs. The Honorable Heather R. Cunningham, Respondent.\n\nState ex rel. Gary Ludwick, Relator, vs. The Honorable Heather R. Cunningham, Judge, Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Respondent.\n\nState ex rel. Kristina Jordan, Relator, vs. The Honorable Heather Cunningham, Judge, Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Respondent.\n\nState ex rel. James Henson, Relator, vs. the Honorable Heather R. Cunningham, St. Louis County, Division 3, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100197","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-06-04","year":2024,"display_summary":"Austin Jarvis and Tonya Musskopf brought a wrongful death action against MHTC employees Michael Love, Gary Ludwick, Kristina Jordan, and James Henson, alleging they violated mandatory safety policies leading to the deaths of Kaitlyn Anderson and Jaxx Jarvis. The employees sought writs of prohibition after the circuit court partially denied their motions for judgment on the pleadings based on official immunity. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writs permanent, holding that official immunity barred the claims because the employees' duties were discretionary, not ministerial, and the plaintiffs' allegations of malice were conclusory without factual support of intent to injure.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208735","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-michael-j-love-relator-v-the-honorable-heather-r-cunningham-100197","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111450:2024-05-21","opinionId":"0a0d958e-d15d-5a46-b603-147280890982","slug":"cherise-brock-and-anthony-brock-appellants-v-dr-rishad-shaikh-respondent-111450","caseName":"Cherise Brock and Anthony Brock, Appellants, vs. Dr. Rishad Shaikh, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111450","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-21","year":2024,"display_summary":"Cherise Brock sued Dr. Rishad Shaikh for negligence after sustaining a permanent lingual nerve injury following a wisdom tooth extraction. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Shaikh. On appeal, Brock argued the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Shaikh's expert to testify on redirect regarding a post-operative X-ray and by denying cross-examination of Dr. Shaikh with a previous patient's medical records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion on either point.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208217","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cherise-brock-and-anthony-brock-appellants-v-dr-rishad-shaikh-respondent-111450","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111973:2024-05-14","opinionId":"19a5aea3-c43e-5d73-8603-33adddcc38aa","slug":"phyllis-ragsdale-and-larry-ragsdale-appellants-v-chris-d-charlton-dc-and-111973","caseName":"Phyllis Ragsdale and Larry Ragsdale, Appellants, v. Chris D. Charlton, D.C. and Charlton Chiropractic, LLC, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111973","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"Phyllis Ragsdale and Larry Ragsdale sued Chris D. Charlton, D.C. and Charlton Chiropractic, LLC, alleging medical malpractice after Phyllis suffered three broken ribs during a spinal adjustment. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Charlton, finding Ragsdale failed to demonstrate negligence or causation. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Charlton's treatment was negligent and caused Ragsdale's injuries, based on expert testimony.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","personal-injury","summary-judgment","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208117","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/phyllis-ragsdale-and-larry-ragsdale-appellants-v-chris-d-charlton-dc-and-111973","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111426:2024-04-30","opinionId":"a5214828-caab-5ec6-a4af-5f7875d923f7","slug":"jimmie-sue-marchbank-and-john-marchbank-appellants-v-amit-chakrabarty-md-111426","caseName":"Jimmie Sue Marchbank and John Marchbank, Appellants, v. Amit Chakrabarty, M.D., and Urology Clinics of North Alabama, P.C., d/b/a Poplar Bluff Urology, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111426","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jimmie Sue and John Marchbank sued Dr. Amit Chakrabarty for medical negligence after Jimmie Sue suffered a permanent colostomy following a vaginal prolapse repair surgery. The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Chakrabarty, and the circuit court entered judgment. On appeal, the Marchbanks argued the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of Dr. Chakrabarty's prior disciplinary record, which they sought to use for impeachment when he testified as a non-retained expert. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, holding that the exclusion of this impeachment evidence was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","evidence","civil-procedure","personal-injury","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jimmie-sue-marchbank-and-john-marchbank-appellants-v-amit-chakrabarty-md-111426","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100212:2024-04-30","opinionId":"539f072c-c4e3-5d30-9021-13ac7a43a240","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-ashley-colville-respondent-100212","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Ashley Colville, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100212","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Ashley Colville was charged with second-degree involuntary manslaughter after a fatal motor vehicle accident. The circuit court dismissed the indictment with prejudice, finding that Colville's alleged actions did not amount to criminal negligence after reviewing a surveillance video. The State appealed, arguing the circuit court improperly considered evidence outside the indictment. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that a court's review of an indictment at the motion to dismiss stage is limited to the face of the indictment to determine if it states the essential elements and apprises the defendant of the facts.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207701","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-ashley-colville-respondent-100212","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111474:2024-04-09","opinionId":"fe990eeb-27f6-5be2-bb9c-5df100db1123","slug":"lauren-neil-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111474","caseName":"Lauren Neil, et al., Appellants, vs. St. Louis County, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111474","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lauren Neil's family sued St. Louis County police officers after their decedent, Mikel Neil, died in a high-speed police chase. The trial court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding no duty owed, no proximate causation, and protection by official immunity and the public duty doctrine. The appellate court affirmed, holding that police officers do not owe a statutory or common law duty of care to fleeing motorists.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lauren-neil-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111474","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111491:2024-04-09","opinionId":"9156e0d3-ff21-5a0a-bb28-bbc25997de07","slug":"tony-woolfolk-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111491","caseName":"Tony Woolfolk, et al., Appellants, vs. St. Louis County, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111491","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Tony Woolfolk's family sued St. Louis County police officers for wrongful death after Woolfolk, a passenger, died in a high-speed police chase that ended in a crash. The trial court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding no duty, no proximate causation, and protection under official immunity and the public duty doctrine. The appellate court affirmed, holding that police officers do not owe a statutory or common law duty of care to voluntary passengers in a fleeing vehicle.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tony-woolfolk-et-al-appellants-v-st-louis-county-et-al-respondents-111491","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38135:2024-04-01","opinionId":"b2351051-de13-5cd9-9f62-ca9f413e6f7a","slug":"stephen-brady-plaintiff-appellant-v-city-of-springfield-missouri-defendan-d38135","caseName":"STEPHEN BRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nCITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38135","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Stephen Brady sued the City of Springfield for premises liability after an automated gate at a city park closed on him, causing injuries. Following a jury trial, the jury assessed zero percent fault to both Brady and the City, and judgment was entered for the City. Brady appealed, alleging five points of instructional error related to a comparative fault jury instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that any alleged instructional error was not prejudicial because the jury assessed zero percent fault to the City.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stephen-brady-plaintiff-appellant-v-city-of-springfield-missouri-defendan-d38135","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111682:2024-03-05","opinionId":"db2e17e5-7e09-59c1-8b12-e836b059567f","slug":"lara-and-brian-fallon-appellants-v-mark-easley-respondent-111682","caseName":"Lara and Brian Fallon, Appellants, v. Mark Easley, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111682","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lara and Brian Fallon sued attorney Mark Easley for legal malpractice, alleging he failed to timely draft and secure the execution of an amendment to their mother's trust. The proposed amendment would have increased the Fallons' share of the trust. The trial court granted summary judgment for Easley, finding that the Fallons, as non-client prospective beneficiaries of an unexecuted testamentary document, could not bring a malpractice claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Donahue privity exception does not extend to unexecuted testamentary instruments and that the Fallons could not prove proximate causation or damages without an executed document evidencing their mother's intent.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206137","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lara-and-brian-fallon-appellants-v-mark-easley-respondent-111682","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100099:2024-03-05","opinionId":"9da6ad71-fd8d-568d-a388-2d59ab504bb3","slug":"state-ex-rel-clinton-no-1-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-brandon-baker-respo-100099","caseName":"State ex rel. Clinton No. 1, Inc., Relator, vs. The Honorable Brandon Baker, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100099","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Donna Yarnell filed a wrongful death action against Clinton No. 1, Inc., a healthcare center, alleging negligence after her mother contracted COVID-19. Clinton sought a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to dismiss the action, claiming immunity under the federal PREP Act and two Missouri statutes. The Missouri Supreme Court quashed its preliminary writ of mandamus, holding that Yarnell's petition did not implicate a \"covered countermeasure\" under the PREP Act, Clinton failed to demonstrate deployment under one state immunity statute, and Yarnell adequately alleged recklessness to overcome the other state immunity statutes.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","negligence","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-clinton-no-1-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-brandon-baker-respo-100099","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86159:2024-03-05","opinionId":"2e0866c7-e65d-5940-acd9-da65179a7cf3","slug":"christopher-patterson-as-next-friend-for-minor-child-cp-v-stephanie-roach-d86159","caseName":"Christopher Patterson, As Next Friend for Minor Child C.P.\nvs.\nStephanie Roach, and Lakeview Terrace Property, LLC","caseNumber":"WD86159","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Christopher Patterson, as next friend for minor child C.P., appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Lakeview Terrace Property, LLC (LTP) on a negligence claim after C.P. was bitten by another tenant's dog. An interlocutory default judgment had been entered against the dog's owner, Stephanie Roach, but damages were not assessed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the judgment was not final because it did not dispose of all parties and issues, and the trial court had not certified it as final under Rule 74.01(b).","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-patterson-as-next-friend-for-minor-child-cp-v-stephanie-roach-d86159","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37699:2024-02-20","opinionId":"1c2d1b1f-b71d-5066-8b18-4da8b60b2c1e","slug":"presley-karlin-plaintiff-respondent-v-uatp-springfield-llc-dba-urban-air-d37699","caseName":"PRESLEY KARLIN, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nUATP SPRINGFIELD, LLC d/b/a URBAN AIR SPRINGFIELD, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37699","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Presley Karlin sued Urban Air Springfield for negligence after sustaining injuries at its facility. Urban Air appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration, arguing Karlin was bound by a release signed by his mother. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the release, which contained the arbitration clause, was only valid for the day it was signed and did not extend to subsequent visits. Therefore, no valid arbitration agreement existed at the time of Karlin's injury.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205717","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/presley-karlin-plaintiff-respondent-v-uatp-springfield-llc-dba-urban-air-d37699","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111694:2024-01-30","opinionId":"89c26fd7-bdd3-53f5-afee-0bac25554242","slug":"john-carlton-appellant-v-brandon-means-respondent-111694","caseName":"John Carlton, Appellant, vs. Brandon Means, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111694","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"John Carlton sued Officer Brandon Means for personal injuries sustained in a vehicular collision, alleging negligence or malice. The trial court granted summary judgment for Officer Means, concluding he was entitled to official immunity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the malice exception to official immunity did not apply because there were no facts demonstrating Officer Means acted with the requisite intent to injure or prejudice Carlton, even if his conduct was reckless.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","auto-accident","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-carlton-appellant-v-brandon-means-respondent-111694","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111387:2024-01-23","opinionId":"dc257fc5-d92b-5ebf-96ec-31c6846411f0","slug":"patricia-anslinger-respondent-v-christian-hospital-northeast-northwest-ap-111387","caseName":"Patricia Anslinger, Respondent, vs. Christian Hospital Northeast-Northwest, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111387","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Patricia Anslinger sued Christian Hospital Northeast-Northwest for personal injuries sustained after she tripped on a rubber floor mat in the hospital's vestibule. A jury found the Hospital liable, and the trial court denied the Hospital's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which argued the condition was open and obvious as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the floor mat's condition was not open and obvious as a matter of law and that the plaintiff presented a submissible case.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204814","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patricia-anslinger-respondent-v-christian-hospital-northeast-northwest-ap-111387","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100030:2023-12-19","opinionId":"536c5fbf-6a66-5f54-8b41-c560ee2b44e3","slug":"steven-harner-respondent-v-mercy-hospital-joplin-appellant-100030","caseName":"Steven Harner, Respondent, vs. Mercy Hospital Joplin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100030","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Steven Harner sued Mercy Hospital Joplin for negligence after he was shot by Kaylea Liska in the hospital's parking lot. Harner alleged Mercy breached its duty to protect him from Liska's criminal acts under the known third person exception. The jury returned a verdict for Harner, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that Mercy owed no duty to Harner because Liska's prior actions, known to Mercy, did not indicate she was dangerous as contemplated by the exception. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203718","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/steven-harner-respondent-v-mercy-hospital-joplin-appellant-100030","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100298:2023-12-19","opinionId":"7b6324c8-ad84-53aa-82c3-30bcf10053a0","slug":"state-ex-rel-tyler-technologies-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-david-p-chamb-100298","caseName":"State ex rel. Tyler Technologies, Inc., Relator, v. The Honorable David P. Chamberlain, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100298","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Tyler Technologies, Inc., sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from proceeding with negligence claims (Counts IV and VI) in a class-action lawsuit. Property owners alleged Tyler negligently performed contractual obligations to assist Jackson County with real property assessments, resulting in illegal assessments. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that Tyler owed no duty of care to the property owners due to the rule of privity, thereby entitling Tyler to dismissal of the claims.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203717","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-tyler-technologies-inc-relator-v-the-honorable-david-p-chamb-100298","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37797:2023-12-19","opinionId":"cc9fef47-ee9d-57a1-9caa-1702e8d955d1","slug":"terry-mccroskey-tom-mccroskey-brent-mccroskey-dwayne-mccroskey-cherie-hob-d37797","caseName":"TERRY MCCROSKEY, TOM MCCROSKEY, BRENT MCCROSKEY, DWAYNE MCCROSKEY, CHERIE HOBSON, individually, and CHERIE HOBSON as Next Friend for L.H., a minor, and BETH MURPHY, as Next Friend for C.M., a minor, Plaintiffs-Respondents\nv.\nRAJINDER SINGH, et al., Defendants-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37797","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"The McCroskeys sued Next Stop C-Stores, LLC, Balwinder Singh, and Gurminder Singh for wrongful death and negligence after Patricia McCroskey was killed in an auto accident involving Rajinder Singh, an alleged employee. The trial court entered an interlocutory default judgment against the defendants for failing to timely respond to the petition. The defendants appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to set aside the default judgment. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that the defendants failed to show good cause for their untimely response.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","wrongful-death","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203736","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/terry-mccroskey-tom-mccroskey-brent-mccroskey-dwayne-mccroskey-cherie-hob-d37797","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85751:2023-10-31","opinionId":"c4c9b590-9fda-5e71-a597-f1d7a687bf7e","slug":"zr-a-minor-by-and-through-her-mother-and-next-friend-tr-and-by-and-throug-d85751","caseName":"Z.R., a Minor, By and Through Her Mother and Next Friend, T.R. and By and Through Her Father and Next Friend, R.R.\nvs.\nKansas City Pediatrics, LLC, and Scott Dattel, M.D.","caseNumber":"WD85751","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-10-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Z.R., a minor, sued Kansas City Pediatrics, LLC, and Scott Dattel, M.D., for medical malpractice related to the alleged negligent failure to diagnose and treat her hip dysplasia. After a jury found in favor of the defendants, the trial court granted Z.R.'s motion for a new trial, finding that a defense expert's trial testimony contradicted his deposition testimony and was not disclosed, causing substantial prejudice. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in granting a new trial due to the surprise expert testimony.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202359","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/zr-a-minor-by-and-through-her-mother-and-next-friend-tr-and-by-and-throug-d85751","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111416:2023-10-31","opinionId":"4d2bc69d-5866-53ed-820a-b5f4746f6746","slug":"daniel-crowder-respondent-v-ingram-barge-company-llc-appellant-111416","caseName":"Daniel Crowder, Respondent, vs. Ingram Barge Company, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111416","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Daniel Crowder sued Ingram Barge Company, LLC, his employer, for negligence under the Jones Act, unseaworthiness, maintenance, and cure after sustaining a knee injury while working on a vessel. A jury awarded Crowder damages, which the trial court reduced based on assessed comparative fault. Ingram appealed, challenging the admissibility of Crowder's economic expert testimony and the denial of its motion for remittitur. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the expert testimony or denying remittitur.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","evidence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202396","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-crowder-respondent-v-ingram-barge-company-llc-appellant-111416","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85795:2023-10-24","opinionId":"512eb139-8b55-565e-93f8-e3e856bedc89","slug":"the-public-school-retirement-system-of-missouri-v-regions-bank-inc-d85795","caseName":"The Public School Retirement System of Missouri \nvs.\nRegions Bank Inc.","caseNumber":"WD85795","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-10-24","year":2023,"display_summary":"The Public School Retirement System of Missouri (PSRS) sued Regions Bank for breach of contract and negligence after the Bank repaid only the remaining balance of a deceased recipient's account, not the full amount of benefits deposited over two decades. The trial court found for PSRS on the contract claim and granted summary judgment for the Bank on the negligence claim. The appellate court reversed the contract judgment, holding that the contract, incorporating NACHA rules, limited the Bank's repayment obligation to the account balance. The court also affirmed the summary judgment on the negligence claim, finding the Bank owed no non-contractual duty to PSRS as a non-customer.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","negligence","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/the-public-school-retirement-system-of-missouri-v-regions-bank-inc-d85795","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111339:2023-09-26","opinionId":"3e889301-1618-5452-bdd8-3979c0972b29","slug":"jj-by-and-through-next-friend-cw-appellant-v-poplar-bluff-regional-medica-111339","caseName":"J.J., by and through Next Friend, C.W., Appellant, v. Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center, L.L.C., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111339","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"J.J., a minor, sued Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center (PBRMC) after an employee, not involved in his treatment, accessed and disclosed his protected health information, leading to harassment. The trial court dismissed J.J.'s claims for failure to file an affidavit of merit under Section 538.225.1, which applies to actions against healthcare providers for damages from health care services. The appellate court reversed, holding that J.J.'s claims for breach of confidentiality did not stem from the rendering of health care services involving professional medical judgment, and thus, the affidavit requirement was inapplicable.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","negligence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201481","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jj-by-and-through-next-friend-cw-appellant-v-poplar-bluff-regional-medica-111339","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111405:2023-09-26","opinionId":"a8217ed1-8979-5367-9d73-0a0e42cf156f","slug":"ch-and-ss-appellants-v-infertility-center-of-saint-louis-et-al-respondent-111405","caseName":"C.H., and S.S., Appellants, v. Infertility Center of Saint Louis, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111405","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"C.H. and S.S. sued Dr. Sherman J. Silber and St. Luke's Infertility Center for medical malpractice, alleging negligent failure to inform C.H. of his 2010 sperm motility test result, which led them to believe the child conceived via IVF was genetically C.H.'s. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the claims time-barred. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed, concluding that even if the claims were timely under a statutory exception, the uncontroverted facts negated the causation element of the damages claim, as C.H. had multiple opportunities to realize the sperm used was not his.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201482","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ch-and-ss-appellants-v-infertility-center-of-saint-louis-et-al-respondent-111405","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111319:2023-09-19","opinionId":"87efd5ee-d11c-54dc-ab7e-ddce92311856","slug":"zs-by-and-through-his-next-friend-ps-appellant-v-rockwood-school-district-111319","caseName":"Z.S., By and Through His Next Friend, P.S., Appellant, v. Rockwood School District, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111319","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Z.S., through his next friend, P.S., appealed the summary judgment granted in favor of Rockwood School District. Z.S. sought damages for personal injuries sustained when he collided with a gymnasium wall during a physical education class, alleging the wall was a dangerous condition. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Z.S. failed to establish the gymnasium wall was in a dangerous condition sufficient to waive the District's sovereign immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","summary-judgment","personal-injury","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201222","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/zs-by-and-through-his-next-friend-ps-appellant-v-rockwood-school-district-111319","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110912:2023-08-01","opinionId":"dd0b5d6d-46c8-58c8-93ba-f2371e74facf","slug":"mark-brommelhorst-and-barbara-brommelhorst-individually-and-on-behalf-of-110912","caseName":"Mark Brommelhorst and Barbara Brommelhorst, Individually and on Behalf of Gabriel Brommelhorst, Deceased, Respondents, vs. Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange, Appellant, and Danielle Johnson, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED110912","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-01","year":2023,"display_summary":"Mark and Barbara Brommelhorst sued Automobile Club Inter-Insurance Exchange (Auto Club) for uninsured motorist coverage and Danielle Johnson for wrongful death after Johnson struck and killed their son, Gabriel Brommelhorst. Johnson was uninsured and defaulted in the proceedings. The trial court denied Auto Club the opportunity to contest Johnson's liability and entered judgment for the Brommelhorsts. The appellate court reversed, holding that Auto Club, as a named defendant, had the right to contest Johnson's liability and was not bound by her admissions by default.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-brommelhorst-and-barbara-brommelhorst-individually-and-on-behalf-of-110912","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111141:2023-07-25","opinionId":"5b1f2c25-4dd6-5cd9-965b-8c7e38c421e6","slug":"julius-copeland-appellant-v-wrbm-llc-dba-western-rivers-boat-management-i-111141","caseName":"Julius Copeland, Appellant, v. WRBM, LLC, d/b/a Western Rivers Boat Management, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111141","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-07-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Julius Copeland sued WRBM, LLC, d/b/a Western Rivers Boat Management, Inc. (Employer), alleging negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law after suffering injuries on a vessel. The trial court dismissed Copeland's First Amended Petition without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the dismissal, holding that Copeland failed to plead sufficient facts to establish specific personal jurisdiction under Missouri's long-arm statute.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","personal-injury","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=197857","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/julius-copeland-appellant-v-wrbm-llc-dba-western-rivers-boat-management-i-111141","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111118:2023-06-20","opinionId":"023e1315-90e2-5d7a-adb8-3a8f81b9ed64","slug":"carly-munoz-appellant-v-six-flags-st-louis-llc-dba-six-flags-st-louis-and-111118","caseName":"Carly Munoz, Appellant, vs. Six Flags St. Louis, LLC d/b/a Six Flags St. Louis and John/Jane Doe, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111118","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-20","year":2023,"display_summary":"Carly Munoz appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Six Flags St. Louis on her negligence claim. Munoz was injured after being scared by a clown actor at the park's Fright Fest, causing her to run and trip. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the doctrine of implied primary assumption of the risk, finding Munoz's injury arose from risks inherent to the event. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Munoz knew, appreciated, and voluntarily accepted the inherent risks of Fright Fest, including the potential for fright leading to running and falling.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","summary-judgment","premises-liability","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196759","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carly-munoz-appellant-v-six-flags-st-louis-llc-dba-six-flags-st-louis-and-111118","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111044:2023-06-13","opinionId":"93ecaf46-d087-5a2a-9ab7-5328782ee39f","slug":"jimmy-d-cook-appellant-v-parkland-health-center-et-al-defendants-and-dr-l-111044","caseName":"Jimmy D. Cook, Appellant, vs. Parkland Health Center, et al., Defendants, and Dr. Lawrence Brown, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111044","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-13","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jimmy D. Cook appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his medical malpractice claims against Dr. Lawrence R. Brown and Dr. Michael Clippard. The circuit court dismissed the claims because Cook failed to file a signed affidavit of merit as required by Section 538.225 RSMo. The appellate court affirmed, holding that an affidavit of merit must be signed to be effective, that a nunc pro tunc order could not correct the missing signature, and that the statutory requirement is constitutional.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","negligence","appellate-procedure","other","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196600","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jimmy-d-cook-appellant-v-parkland-health-center-et-al-defendants-and-dr-l-111044","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110884:2023-06-13","opinionId":"a800f12b-e5af-54f3-a49c-9d667c20438f","slug":"tyler-hollis-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-mother-and-conservato-110884","caseName":"Tyler Hollis, a Minor By and Through His Next Friend, Mother and Conservator, Karen Hollis, Appellant, vs. Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center, LLC, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110884","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-06-13","year":2023,"display_summary":"Tyler Hollis, a minor, sued Poplar Bluff Regional Medical Center and Jennifer Lay for negligence, alleging they failed to warn of child abuse by his mother, Heather Lane, who later pleaded guilty to child abuse. At trial, respondents introduced evidence that the mother's then-boyfriend, Ben Andrews, caused Hollis's injuries. The jury found for the respondents. On appeal, Hollis challenged an affirmative converse instruction given by the trial court and the admission of evidence supporting it. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the instruction was proper as it addressed a disputed ultimate issue of who caused the injury, and the evidentiary rulings were not reversible error.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","jury-instructions","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=196599","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/tyler-hollis-a-minor-by-and-through-his-next-friend-mother-and-conservato-110884","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110937:2023-05-30","opinionId":"af1ff483-d2c2-556e-841e-b0725b62664e","slug":"anastasia-collier-respondent-v-andrea-steinbach-appellant-110937","caseName":"Anastasia Collier, Respondent, vs. Andrea Steinbach, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110937","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"Anastasia Collier sued Andrea Steinbach for negligence following a motor vehicle accident. After a second trial, the jury found for Collier but assessed 15% fault to her. The trial court then granted Collier's motion for a new trial, finding an improper closing argument by Steinbach's counsel warranted a mistrial, despite Collier having declined a mistrial at trial. The appellate court reversed the order granting a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because Collier waived any claim of prejudice by declining the offered mistrial and receiving all requested relief, and the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195995","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anastasia-collier-respondent-v-andrea-steinbach-appellant-110937","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110598:2023-05-16","opinionId":"9dcea216-837d-5386-bb4f-959881ee8abb","slug":"st-louis-center-for-aesthetic-and-restorative-dentistry-et-al-appellants-110598","caseName":"St. Louis Center for Aesthetic and Restorative Dentistry, et al., Appellants, vs. A. Thomas Dewoskin, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110598","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-16","year":2023,"display_summary":"Dr. Guilan Norouzi, through her bankruptcy trustee, appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former attorney, A. Thomas DeWoskin, and his law firm, in a legal malpractice action. Norouzi alleged DeWoskin was negligent in failing to appear and defend her at a damages hearing in an underlying lawsuit, resulting in a substantial judgment against her. The Eastern District reversed the summary judgment, holding that the circuit court's post-judgment ruling was not an intervening cause of Norouzi's damages and that her expert witness sufficiently identified her damages.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/st-louis-center-for-aesthetic-and-restorative-dentistry-et-al-appellants-110598","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37445:2023-05-12","opinionId":"50452227-c4f7-5f9a-9dfd-617ae751a9e0","slug":"charlotte-wright-plaintiff-appellant-v-arturo-marrufo-armijo-defendant-re-d37445","caseName":"CHARLOTTE WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv\nARTURO MARRUFO ARMIJO, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37445","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"Charlotte Wright sued Arturo Marrufo Armijo for negligence following a car accident, seeking damages for both personal injuries and property damage. The trial court found in Wright's favor on her negligence claim but awarded only property damages, declining to award damages for personal injuries. On appeal, Wright argued the judgment was inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court was not required to believe Wright's uncontradicted testimony regarding her personal injuries and that her failure to prove these damages made the judgment consistent.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","auto-accident","negligence","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charlotte-wright-plaintiff-appellant-v-arturo-marrufo-armijo-defendant-re-d37445","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110581:2023-05-09","opinionId":"f12a2017-63bb-58ef-b507-2d4bde75fa88","slug":"vicki-shad-schaefer-individually-and-vicki-shade-schaefer-on-behalf-of-th-110581","caseName":"Vicki Shad-Schaefer, Individually, and Vicki Shade-Schaefer on Behalf of the Estate of Wayne Schaefer, Christopher Schaefer, and Stephanie Schaefer, Appellants, vs. City of Eureka, Robert Wade, and Richard Green, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED110581","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-09","year":2023,"display_summary":"Appellants sued the City of Eureka, its employee Robert Wade, and painter Richard Green for inhalation injuries from paint overspray during water tank maintenance, later adding a wrongful death claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants and denied leave to add the wrongful death claim. The appellate court reversed summary judgment for Eureka, finding its water tank maintenance a proprietary function not protected by sovereign immunity. It affirmed summary judgment for Wade and Green on the original negligence claims. The court also reversed the denial of leave to add the wrongful death claim against Eureka, Green, and two new defendants, holding the claim accrued at death and was not time-barred, and that the trial court abused its discretion. However, the denial of leave as to Wade was affirmed due to official immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","negligence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195297","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vicki-shad-schaefer-individually-and-vicki-shade-schaefer-on-behalf-of-th-110581","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110811:2023-04-11","opinionId":"9cee92c0-458a-5e7d-a96d-a6ddb81364e0","slug":"daniel-mccullen-appellant-v-matthew-p-ogrady-et-al-respondents-110811","caseName":"Daniel McCullen, Appellant, vs. Matthew P. O'Grady, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110811","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-11","year":2023,"display_summary":"Daniel McCullen appealed the dismissal of his legal malpractice claims against his former attorneys, Matthew P. O'Grady, O'Grady Law Firm, LLC, OnderLaw, LLC, and James D. O'Leary. The trial court had dismissed the claims, finding them barred by the five-year statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, holding that for a layperson involved in complex litigation, the claims accrued when an adverse summary judgment ruling effectively closed all avenues of recovery, which fell within the statutory period. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","negligence","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194357","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-mccullen-appellant-v-matthew-p-ogrady-et-al-respondents-110811","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110498:2023-04-11","opinionId":"6c22d4d4-8a96-59b3-8363-eda41492e87f","slug":"andrew-denney-appellant-v-sybergs-westport-inc-dba-sybergs-respondent-110498","caseName":"Andrew Denney, Appellant, v. Syberg's Westport, Inc., d/b/a Syberg's, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110498","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-11","year":2023,"display_summary":"Andrew Denney sued Syberg's Westport, Inc., after suffering an allergic reaction to seafood at its buffet, alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. A jury found Denney's damages to be $50,000 but attributed 90% fault to him, resulting in a $5,000 award. Denney appealed, raising eight points of error concerning jury instructions on comparative fault, exclusion of evidence, objections to closing argument, and denial of motions to strike venirepersons. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of Denney's claims.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194355","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andrew-denney-appellant-v-sybergs-westport-inc-dba-sybergs-respondent-110498","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37398:2023-04-11","opinionId":"01e0d796-e9f5-5600-a5db-121804f25a8a","slug":"vivian-badillo-appellant-v-the-home-city-ice-company-and-myles-mathis-res-d37398","caseName":"VIVIAN BADILLO, Appellant\nvs.\nTHE HOME CITY ICE COMPANY, and MYLES MATHIS, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37398","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-11","year":2023,"display_summary":"Vivian Badillo was injured in an auto accident caused by Myles Mathis, an employee of The Home City Ice Company. Badillo sued Mathis for negligence and Home City Ice for negligence based on respondeat superior, seeking punitive damages against both. The trial court excluded evidence related to Home City Ice's hiring, training, and policies, finding it irrelevant to a punitive damages claim based solely on vicarious liability. The jury awarded compensatory damages but denied punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence because it was not relevant to a punitive damages claim based only on vicarious liability.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","negligence","civil-procedure","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vivian-badillo-appellant-v-the-home-city-ice-company-and-myles-mathis-res-d37398","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99650:2023-03-21","opinionId":"b9530a9e-3f31-5861-ae89-17bcd1ca06bd","slug":"kristine-hill-and-dennis-hill-relators-v-the-honorable-stanley-j-wallach-c99650","caseName":"Kristine Hill and Dennis Hill, Relators, vs. The Honorable Stanley J. Wallach, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99650","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-03-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Kristine and Dennis Hill sued Mercy Rehabilitation Hospital for negligence after Ms. Hill sustained injuries from a malfunctioning hospital bed. During discovery, Mercy sought settlement documents related to a subsequent motor vehicle accident involving Ms. Hill, asserting a reduction defense under section 537.060. The Hills argued these documents were protected by the work product doctrine, but the circuit court compelled their production. The Missouri Supreme Court quashed a preliminary writ of prohibition issued by the court of appeals, holding that the settlement documents were not protected by the work product doctrine because the Hills had waived protection by disclosing them to an adversary.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193497","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kristine-hill-and-dennis-hill-relators-v-the-honorable-stanley-j-wallach-c99650","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110514:2023-03-21","opinionId":"cb0de46d-35b5-5845-b5a3-52bbc513d253","slug":"debbie-m-earley-appellant-v-mary-v-dunn-respondent-110514","caseName":"Debbie M. Earley, Appellant, v. Mary V. Dunn, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110514","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Debbie Earley, an in-home caregiver, sued her employer, Mary Dunn, for negligence after being sexually assaulted by Dunn's grandson in Dunn's home. Earley argued that the employer-employee relationship created a duty for Dunn to protect her from third-party criminal acts. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Dunn, finding no such duty. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employer-employee relationship alone does not constitute a special relationship giving rise to a duty to protect against unforeseeable third-party criminal acts, and that prior statements to the contrary were dictum.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","employment-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193476","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/debbie-m-earley-appellant-v-mary-v-dunn-respondent-110514","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37266:2023-03-07","opinionId":"dc15ac99-890d-5fac-90dd-cf8bfa70dc27","slug":"steven-harner-plaintiff-respondent-v-mercy-hospital-joplin-defendant-appe-d37266","caseName":"STEVEN HARNER, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nMERCY HOSPITAL JOPLIN, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37266","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Steven Harner sued Mercy Hospital Joplin for negligence after he was shot by Kaylea Liska in the hospital's parking lot. The trial court denied Mercy's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following a jury verdict for Harner. On appeal, Mercy argued Harner failed to make a submissible case under the Known Third Person exception and that the verdict director misstated the law. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Mercy's knowledge of Liska's prior criminal acts on its property was sufficient to trigger a duty, and the jury instruction did not misstate the law.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193155","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/steven-harner-plaintiff-respondent-v-mercy-hospital-joplin-defendant-appe-d37266","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110638:2023-03-07","opinionId":"a5faed79-2142-5eca-8c00-316ced45f74d","slug":"stephanie-clark-appellant-v-ssm-healthcare-st-louis-dba-ssm-health-st-jos-110638","caseName":"Stephanie Clark, Appellant, vs. SSM Healthcare St. Louis, d/b/a SSM Health St. Joseph Hospital, Wentzville, Dawn Holemon, M.D., Lee M. Freund, D.O., and St. Charles Emergency Group, LLC., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110638","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Stephanie Clark sued SSM Healthcare St. Louis and other medical providers for medical negligence and wrongful death after her fourteen-year-old daughter, D.G., committed suicide following discharge from the hospital. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on three grounds: causation, statutory immunity, and a claim for aggravating circumstances damages. The appellate court reversed on all three bases, finding that the trial court misconstrued Missouri law on causation in wrongful death cases, erroneously applied a statutory immunity provision, and used the wrong version of the statute for aggravating circumstances damages.","primaryTopic":"wrongful-death","topicSlugs":["wrongful-death","negligence","summary-judgment","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193099","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stephanie-clark-appellant-v-ssm-healthcare-st-louis-dba-ssm-health-st-jos-110638","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85350:2023-02-07","opinionId":"3ea84599-e5b4-5767-a348-2721a381374b","slug":"cassandra-cox-v-callaway-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-d85350","caseName":"Cassandra Cox\nvs. \nCallaway County Sheriff's Department, et al.","caseNumber":"WD85350","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-02-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Cassandra Cox sued Callaway County and fourteen correctional officers for negligence after experiencing a cardiac event while detained at the county jail. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding them entitled to official and sovereign immunity, and that proximate cause was not established. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Cox failed to properly preserve her arguments regarding official immunity and that Callaway County's sovereign immunity was not waived by its insurance policy's disclaimer provision.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192114","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cassandra-cox-v-callaway-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-d85350","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99419:2023-01-31","opinionId":"d7fa7f3a-2d0a-5d96-a202-82f60b7a72a8","slug":"christopher-zang-appellant-v-city-of-st-charles-missouri-respondent-c99419","caseName":"Christopher Zang, Appellant, vs. City of St. Charles, Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99419","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-01-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Christopher Zang sued the City of St. Charles for negligence and premises liability after sustaining injuries from a fall. The circuit court dismissed Zang's premises liability claim due to his failure to provide notice of suit as required by the City's Charter. Zang appealed, arguing the Charter's notice requirement conflicted with various state statutes. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no irreconcilable conflict between the Charter's notice provision and the cited state statutes, as local laws may be more restrictive than state laws.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","premises-liability","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-zang-appellant-v-city-of-st-charles-missouri-respondent-c99419","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85170:2022-12-27","opinionId":"c5e1d938-4eaa-5c51-801a-92debbebb9aa","slug":"arlene-wickham-v-jean-hummel-d85170","caseName":"Arlene Wickham \nvs. \nJean Hummel","caseNumber":"WD85170","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"Arlene Wickham sued nurse Jean Hummel for medical malpractice after a knee replacement surgery led to a below-the-knee amputation. A jury found Hummel 100% at fault for failing to perform proper neurovascular assessments and notify the surgeon of Wickham's deteriorating condition. Hummel appealed the judgment and the denial of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Wickham presented a submissible case on both breach of the standard of care and causation, and that the trial court did not err in its handling of damages.","primaryTopic":"personal-injury","topicSlugs":["personal-injury","negligence","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191434","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arlene-wickham-v-jean-hummel-d85170","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99626:2022-12-06","opinionId":"9804b3aa-281c-53b9-8001-443c167e0444","slug":"state-ex-rel-mayela-barron-relator-v-the-honorable-john-d-beger-responden-c99626","caseName":"State ex rel. Mayela Barron, Relator, vs. The Honorable John D. Beger, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99626","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-12-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Justin Osborn alleged negligence claims against Missouri Highway Patrol Trooper Mayela Barron in her individual capacity. The circuit court denied Trooper Barron's motion for summary judgment, concluding she was not entitled to official immunity. The Missouri Supreme Court issued a preliminary writ of prohibition, which it then made permanent, directing the circuit court to vacate its order and sustain Trooper Barron's motion for summary judgment. The Court held that Trooper Barron's actions during the pursuit were discretionary, not ministerial, thus entitling her to official immunity.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191004","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-mayela-barron-relator-v-the-honorable-john-d-beger-responden-c99626","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85113:2022-12-06","opinionId":"2b6bf177-6643-5ad5-8f64-b71c0ff257a4","slug":"joemo-holdings-llc-v-unique-creations-salon-llc-and-adam-meisinger-and-ta-d85113","caseName":"Joemo Holdings, LLC \nvs. \nUnique Creations Salon, LLC, and Adam Meisinger and Tamara Meisinger","caseNumber":"WD85113","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Joemo Holdings, LLC (Landlord) sued Unique Creations Salon, LLC (Tenant) for rent and possession, to which Tenant counterclaimed for negligence and breach of contract. The trial court found in favor of the Landlord, and Tenant appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the Tenant should have sought a trial de novo under section 512.180.1, as the case was tried without a jury before an associate circuit judge under Chapter 535. The matter was remanded for a determination of appellate attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure","contracts","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190959","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joemo-holdings-llc-v-unique-creations-salon-llc-and-adam-meisinger-and-ta-d85113","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84947:2022-12-06","opinionId":"0a81751a-9632-5fde-b220-2fdec247f1cb","slug":"marsha-zerpa-a-surviving-spouse-of-nicholas-zerpa-deceased-v-xpo-logistic-d84947","caseName":"Marsha Zerpa, A Surviving Spouse of Nicholas Zerpa, Deceased \nvs. \nXPO Logistics Freight, Inc., and Timothy Lee Chambers","caseNumber":"WD84947","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Marsha Zerpa appealed a jury verdict in favor of XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. and Timothy Lee Chambers in her wrongful death lawsuit, alleging their negligence caused her husband's death. Zerpa contended the trial court erred by giving an improper affirmative converse jury instruction. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the instruction was improper as it hypothesized facts that were not sufficient to bar the plaintiff's recovery.","primaryTopic":"jury-instructions","topicSlugs":["jury-instructions","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190956","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marsha-zerpa-a-surviving-spouse-of-nicholas-zerpa-deceased-v-xpo-logistic-d84947","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37325:2022-11-22","opinionId":"10935309-033b-5cfb-984d-e0f519968c3f","slug":"christina-forester-appellant-v-chrystal-may-respondent-d37325","caseName":"CHRISTINA FORESTER, Appellant\nvs.\nCHRYSTAL MAY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37325","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Christina Forester filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Chrystal May, a Children's Division caseworker, after Forester's 22-month-old grandchild died from a fentanyl overdose. The trial court dismissed the petition based on official immunity and lack of causation. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the caseworker's duty to complete and submit a SAFE CARE referral form was a ministerial act not subject to official immunity, and that causation was not a proper ground for dismissal as it was not raised in the motion to dismiss.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","wrongful-death","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christina-forester-appellant-v-chrystal-may-respondent-d37325","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85031:2022-11-22","opinionId":"0dbb7e4a-07a4-5da5-96b7-448f7ec84ba4","slug":"donald-brooks-v-william-j-laurie-and-crown-center-farms-inc-d85031","caseName":"Donald Brooks\nvs. \nWilliam J. Laurie and Crown Center Farms, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD85031","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Donald Brooks sued William Laurie and Crown Center Farms, Inc. for injuries sustained while cutting trees, alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Crown Center Farms was Brooks's statutory employer under the Workers' Compensation Law, thus providing exclusive remedy, and Laurie was an employee shielded from liability. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether tree cutting was within Crown Center Farms' \"usual business\" to establish statutory employer status, and consequently, Laurie's immunity as an employee also failed.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190597","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-brooks-v-william-j-laurie-and-crown-center-farms-inc-d85031","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37344:2022-11-14","opinionId":"9fe60d51-2c30-5b24-9e8e-be487aeed820","slug":"kenneth-d-gilmore-respondent-v-missouri-department-of-social-services-chi-d37344","caseName":"KENNETH D. GILMORE, Respondent\nv.\nMISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37344","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-14","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kenneth D. Gilmore sued the Missouri Department of Social Services, Children's Division, for negligence after he was injured when a rocking chair broke during a supervised visit. A jury found in Gilmore's favor, and the trial court reduced the damages award by comparative fault and then applied a statutory cap. The Children's Division appealed, challenging the application of the dangerous condition exception to sovereign immunity, the spoliation inference, the admission of a statement, and the method of applying the statutory cap. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in any of the Children's Division's points.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","negligence","premises-liability","evidence","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kenneth-d-gilmore-respondent-v-missouri-department-of-social-services-chi-d37344","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110387:2022-10-18","opinionId":"8838b230-a1fb-5e4d-8dff-8a53a04dbd65","slug":"belinda-wilkins-appellant-v-john-hendel-and-patricia-hendel-respondents-a-110387","caseName":"Belinda Wilkins, Appellant, v. John Hendel and Patricia Hendel, Respondents, and City of Maplewood, Missouri, Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED110387","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-10-18","year":2022,"display_summary":"Belinda Wilkins sued John and Patricia Hendel for negligence and nuisance after falling into an uncovered sewer vent on a public right-of-way adjacent to their property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Hendels, finding they owed no duty to Wilkins. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Hendels did not make a \"special use\" of the public right-of-way, which would have created a duty to maintain or repair the sewer vent.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189897","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/belinda-wilkins-appellant-v-john-hendel-and-patricia-hendel-respondents-a-110387","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110325:2022-10-11","opinionId":"ed757423-cbed-59d5-8be2-c29671a71ed2","slug":"jemerio-harris-and-jacqueline-armstrong-plaintiffsappellants-v-city-of-st-110325","caseName":"Jemerio Harris and Jacqueline Armstrong, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. City of St. Louis, Missouri, James Zwilling, Michael Scego, and Timothy Boyce, Defendants/Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110325","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-10-11","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jemerio Harris and Jacqueline Armstrong appealed a judgment on the pleadings granted in favor of the City of St. Louis and several police officers. Appellants had filed wrongful death and negligence claims after a suspect, fleeing from the officers, caused a collision that resulted in a fatality and serious injuries. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the officers' conduct was not the proximate cause of the collision as a matter of law, consistent with established Missouri precedent on police pursuits.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","wrongful-death","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","auto-accident"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jemerio-harris-and-jacqueline-armstrong-plaintiffsappellants-v-city-of-st-110325","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"car-accidents","label":"Car Accidents","href":"/practice-areas/car-accidents","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/car-accidents"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85172:2022-09-27","opinionId":"7160aa69-1c85-5cce-99db-db3289cc2cf6","slug":"sarah-channel-lauren-channel-mary-channel-v-stephen-walker-individually-d85172","caseName":"Sarah Channel, Lauren Channel, Mary Channel\nvs. \nStephen Walker, Individually","caseNumber":"WD85172","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-09-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"Sarah, Lauren, and Mary Channel appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Stephen Walker in their wrongful death action. They alleged Walker, a co-employee and manager, intentionally and negligently caused Thomas Channel's heat-related death by failing to follow heat stress protocols and assigning him to a long route in a truck without air conditioning. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Walker's alleged actions were encompassed within the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace and did not constitute a breach of an independent duty of care.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","negligence","summary-judgment","employment-law","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189376","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sarah-channel-lauren-channel-mary-channel-v-stephen-walker-individually-d85172","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84990:2022-08-23","opinionId":"0eb63ba4-71a7-559f-ad73-5359ae02cdb5","slug":"katherine-harned-v-daniel-v-spurlock-do-et-al-d84990","caseName":"Katherine Harned\nvs. \nDaniel V. Spurlock, D.O., et al.","caseNumber":"WD84990","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-08-23","year":2022,"display_summary":"Katherine Harned sued Daniel V. Spurlock, D.O., and Meritas Health Corporation for medical malpractice after a suicide attempt resulted in severe burns, alleging negligent discharge and treatment. A jury found in favor of Harned, and the trial court denied the defendants' motions for new trial and remittitur. On appeal, the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of the motion for new trial, and concluding that the claims of instructional error and limitation of cross-examination were unpreserved. The court also found that the trial court properly applied the catastrophic personal injury cap for noneconomic damages.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","evidence","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188635","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/katherine-harned-v-daniel-v-spurlock-do-et-al-d84990","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110291:2022-08-09","opinionId":"8d428d41-0d20-54dc-b286-13a54c2f9bfc","slug":"mb-appellant-v-live-nation-worldwide-inc-and-leslie-ramsey-respondents-110291","caseName":"M.B., Appellant, vs. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., and Leslie Ramsey, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110291","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-08-09","year":2022,"display_summary":"M.B. appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. and Leslie Ramsey, alleging they were liable for a sexual assault by A.R. at her apartment after she became intoxicated at their concert venue. M.B. contended Respondents assumed a duty to protect her by assisting her while intoxicated and then releasing her to A.R. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Respondents had no legal duty to M.B. to protect her from an off-premises sexual assault, as the summary-judgment record did not establish the special facts and circumstances required to create such a duty.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188440","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mb-appellant-v-live-nation-worldwide-inc-and-leslie-ramsey-respondents-110291","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"slip-and-fall","label":"Slip and Fall","href":"/practice-areas/slip-and-fall","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99249:2022-06-14","opinionId":"ed46324f-bfd6-5654-bae0-7ff9e77f949c","slug":"alfred-j-aj-giudicy-appellant-v-mercy-hospitals-east-communities-fka-st-j-c99249","caseName":"Alfred J. (A.J.) Giudicy, Appellant, vs. Mercy Hospitals East Communities f/k/a St. John's Mercy Medical Center, and Michael J. Chehval, M.D., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC99249","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-06-14","year":2022,"display_summary":"Alfred J. Giudicy appealed the circuit court's dismissal of his medical malpractice case without prejudice for failing to file an affidavit of merit within 180 days, as required by section 538.225. Giudicy argued the statute was unconstitutional, that the defense was waived, and that he substantially complied. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, rejecting all of Giudicy's arguments, finding the statute constitutional, the defense not waivable, and no substantial compliance with the filing deadline.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","personal-injury","other","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187418","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alfred-j-aj-giudicy-appellant-v-mercy-hospitals-east-communities-fka-st-j-c99249","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84722:2022-06-07","opinionId":"87db0001-35e8-58d9-a381-5dd47f2b0c7e","slug":"mo-v-geico-general-insurance-company-and-government-employees-insurance-c-d84722","caseName":"M.O.\nvs. \nGeico General Insurance Company and Government Employees Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD84722","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-07","year":2022,"display_summary":"M.O. sued GEICO's insured, M.B., for negligently infecting her with HPV during sexual encounters in his automobile, asserting coverage under his GEICO policy. After GEICO denied coverage, M.O. and M.B. entered a section 537.065 agreement and arbitrated, resulting in a $5.2 million award for M.O. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment, then granted GEICO's motion to intervene. GEICO appealed, arguing it was denied a meaningful opportunity to defend its interests pre-judgment. The appellate court affirmed, holding that neither section 537.065 nor Rule 52.12 grants intervenors the right to litigate on the merits or intervene pre-judgment, and GEICO's constitutional rights were not violated.","primaryTopic":"insurance","topicSlugs":["insurance","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187183","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mo-v-geico-general-insurance-company-and-government-employees-insurance-c-d84722","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84645:2022-05-17","opinionId":"15009cb5-1a42-53f6-a502-302e59979003","slug":"thomas-yuncker-and-christopher-gutierrez-v-dodds-logistics-llc-and-keith-d84645","caseName":"Thomas Yuncker and Christopher Gutierrez\nvs. \nDodds Logistics, LLC and Keith Dodds;\nZurich American Insurance Company","caseNumber":"WD84645","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-17","year":2022,"display_summary":"Zurich American Insurance Co. appealed a circuit court judgment confirming an arbitration award that found Mr. Keith Dodds and Dodds Logistics, LLC negligent and awarded damages. Zurich, a non-party to the original suit, filed a post-judgment motion to intervene and vacate the judgment, which the trial court did not rule on. The appellate court dismissed Zurich's appeal, holding that Zurich lacked standing because it was not a party when the judgment was entered, and its post-judgment motion to intervene did not confer party status or extend the trial court's jurisdiction to rule on the motion.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","insurance","negligence"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186875","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/thomas-yuncker-and-christopher-gutierrez-v-dodds-logistics-llc-and-keith-d84645","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109672:2022-05-17","opinionId":"cd68d232-7f9f-574d-938b-ded70b8c138e","slug":"michael-reddick-appellant-v-spring-lake-estates-homeowners-association-me-109672","caseName":"Michael Reddick, Appellant, v. Spring Lake Estates Homeowner's Association, Melvin Dockins, and Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED109672","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-17","year":2022,"display_summary":"Michael Reddick filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Spring Lake Estates Homeowner's Association, home inspector Melvin Dockins, and Acuity, a Mutual Insurance Company, following his wife's fatal fall. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the Association and dismissed Reddick's claims against Dockins and Acuity. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Association owed no duty to light private property, Dockins owed no duty to the decedent, and a Section 537.065 agreement did not bind Acuity or allow a direct action against it.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","civil-procedure","wrongful-death","summary-judgment","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-reddick-appellant-v-spring-lake-estates-homeowners-association-me-109672","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84545:2022-04-12","opinionId":"37267d75-dc66-5c86-9cc6-22bf25b52e4d","slug":"arr-v-tau-kappa-epsilon-fraternity-inc-and-delta-nu-teke-house-associatio-d84545","caseName":"A.R.R.\nvs. \nTau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity, Inc., and Delta Nu Teke House Association","caseNumber":"WD84545","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-04-12","year":2022,"display_summary":"A.R.R. appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity, Inc. and TKE Delta Nu House Association on her claims of premises liability, negligent supervision, and general negligence. A.R.R.'s claims stemmed from an alleged sexual assault at a fraternity Halloween party. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the defendants did not owe a duty to A.R.R. under any of her asserted theories of liability.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","premises-liability","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/arr-v-tau-kappa-epsilon-fraternity-inc-and-delta-nu-teke-house-associatio-d84545","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]}]}