{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"premises-liability","label":"Premises Liability","description":null,"totalCases":41,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"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":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":1,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":2},{"year":2019,"count":4},{"year":2020,"count":5},{"year":2021,"count":5},{"year":2022,"count":4},{"year":2023,"count":5},{"year":2024,"count":9},{"year":2025,"count":5},{"year":2026,"count":2}],"cases":[{"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":"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:sc100623:2025-03-18","opinionId":"a5c629a6-05d9-5b56-9a1f-75a778626e08","slug":"state-ex-rel-state-of-missouri-department-of-natural-resources-relator-v-100623","caseName":"State ex rel. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Relator, vs. The Honorable Kevin Crane, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100623","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"The Department of Natural Resources sought a writ of prohibition to bar the circuit court from proceeding with a personal injury claim filed by Scott Frey, who was injured while biking on the Katy Trail. The circuit court had denied the department's motion for summary judgment, which asserted immunity under the Recreational Use Act. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the Recreational Use Act protects the department from liability. The Court found that the department met the Act's immunity requirements and that no exceptions, including those for gross negligence or ultrahazardous conditions, applied. It also rejected the argument that the department could be held vicariously liable for its employees' actions, as employees acting on behalf of a landowner share the landowner's immunity regarding land conditions.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","personal-injury","premises-liability","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-state-of-missouri-department-of-natural-resources-relator-v-100623","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":"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: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":"moappd:ed112647:2024-12-24","opinionId":"641353b5-291d-59a4-a5ea-700b38251374","slug":"addie-smith-appellant-v-zion-travelers-missionary-baptist-church-responde-112647","caseName":"Addie Smith, Appellant, v. Zion Travelers Missionary Baptist Church, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112647","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Addie Smith sued Zion Travelers Missionary Baptist Church for damages under a premises liability theory after she fell and sustained injuries. The trial court denied Smith's motion to amend her petition to include an alternate theory of injury involving a defective door, and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Church. The appellate court reversed both orders, finding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend, which resulted in severe hardship to Smith and no undue prejudice to the Church. Consequently, the grant of summary judgment was also reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215959","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/addie-smith-appellant-v-zion-travelers-missionary-baptist-church-responde-112647","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"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":"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":"moappd:ed112005:2024-08-20","opinionId":"a31134be-922e-553e-b487-da9debf5934e","slug":"patricia-nowell-silman-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-public-safety-v-112005","caseName":"Patricia Nowell-Silman, Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Public Safety Veterans' Commission d/b/a Missouri Veterans' Home, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112005","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Patricia Nowell-Silman appealed the dismissal of her premises liability and wrongful death petition against the Missouri Veterans' Home (MVC) after her father, a resident, left the facility, fell, and died. She alleged a dangerous condition on MVC's property due to the lack of coded locks and resident monitors, which she claimed waived sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the absence of such devices did not constitute a physical defect in the property necessary to establish a dangerous condition under the sovereign immunity waiver statute.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","premises-liability","civil-procedure","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210476","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patricia-nowell-silman-appellant-v-missouri-department-of-public-safety-v-112005","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"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":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/slip-and-fall"},{"slug":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"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: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:sc100110:2024-01-09","opinionId":"bd02cc5c-6275-5d21-a0fa-3040915cc253","slug":"rachel-sender-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-100110","caseName":"Rachel Sender, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent","caseNumber":"SC100110","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-01-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Rachel Sender sued the City of St. Louis for negligence after a bicycle accident on a bike path, alleging a defect. The circuit court dismissed her claims, finding the bike path was a \"thoroughfare\" requiring statutory notice under section 82.210, and her notice was insufficient. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the bike path is indeed a thoroughfare under the statute, but it could not review the sufficiency of Sender's notice because she failed to provide the necessary evidentiary hearing transcript in the record on appeal.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rachel-sender-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-100110","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"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":"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:ed110898:2023-04-18","opinionId":"6404f3fb-7b39-5fcc-a901-4fa24d67fb0f","slug":"rachel-sender-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-110898","caseName":"Rachel Sender, Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110898","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Rachel Sender sued the City of St. Louis for injuries sustained after wrecking her bicycle on a bike path, alleging negligence and premises liability. The trial court dismissed her petition, finding her notice to the City insufficient under Section 82.210, RSMo. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that a bike path is a \"thoroughfare\" under the statute, and the City failed to establish that Sender's notice was so misleading as to prejudice its ability to investigate or defend.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","premises-liability","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194600","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rachel-sender-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-respondent-110898","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"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":"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":"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":"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: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":"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"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109422:2021-10-19","opinionId":"9980a60e-a27a-536d-8361-fc212dc5836b","slug":"christopher-zang-appellant-v-city-of-st-charles-missouri-respondent-109422","caseName":"Christopher Zang, Appellant, v. City of St. Charles, Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109422","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-10-19","year":2021,"display_summary":"Christopher Zang sued the City of St. Charles for personal injuries sustained in a bicycle accident on a city bridge, alleging negligence and premises liability. The trial court dismissed Zang's premises liability claim, finding that a city charter provision requiring notice of claims was valid and consistent with state law. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the city charter's broad notice requirement conflicted with state statutes that narrowly waive sovereign immunity and impose notice requirements only for specific dangerous conditions.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181339","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-zang-appellant-v-city-of-st-charles-missouri-respondent-109422","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"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:wd84077:2021-08-03","opinionId":"4a4024cd-1eca-586b-90f6-3ee8fb0e7067","slug":"angela-brown-v-va-second-lp-d84077","caseName":"Angela Brown\nvs. \nVA Second LP.","caseNumber":"WD84077","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-08-03","year":2021,"display_summary":"Angela Brown sued VAALP for negligence after slipping on ice at an apartment complex. After her initial suit was dismissed without prejudice, Brown refiled and later sought to add VA Second LP as a defendant, believing it was the property owner, and subsequently dismissed VAALP. The trial court dismissed the claim against VA Second LP as time-barred, finding that the relation-back doctrine under Rule 55.33(c) did not apply. The appellate court affirmed, holding that adding a new defendant, even with a subsequent voluntary dismissal of an original defendant, does not constitute a substitution of parties for the purpose of the relation-back doctrine.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179180","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/angela-brown-v-va-second-lp-d84077","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:ed108986:2021-03-09","opinionId":"730b1f07-fcd8-5076-9180-d366df22ae59","slug":"colleen-odonnell-appellant-v-pnk-river-city-llc-dba-river-city-casino-hot-108986","caseName":"Colleen O'Donnell, Appellant, vs. PNK (River City), LLC, d/b/a River City Casino & Hotel, and Total Lot Maintenance, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED108986","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-03-09","year":2021,"display_summary":"Colleen O'Donnell sued River City Casino & Hotel and Total Lot Maintenance (TLM) for personal injuries sustained from a slip and fall on ice at the casino during a winter storm. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for River City, applying the Massachusetts Rule that landowners owe no duty for natural ice accumulation. However, the court reversed and remanded summary judgment for TLM, finding a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether TLM's contractual duty to remove or treat ice had been triggered.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","summary-judgment","negligence","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174635","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colleen-odonnell-appellant-v-pnk-river-city-llc-dba-river-city-casino-hot-108986","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"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83644:2021-02-23","opinionId":"3ed88a90-7c9f-58f7-86d0-8b7d13f1dca5","slug":"michael-lee-v-missouri-department-of-transportation-d83644","caseName":"Michael Lee\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Transportation","caseNumber":"WD83644","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-02-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Michael Lee sued the Missouri Department of Transportation for wrongful death after his daughter, Jessica Lee, died when her car was swept off a flooded road. The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding Jessica's awareness of the danger precluded the claim under *Harris v. Niehaus*. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the petition sufficiently alleged that MoDOT should have anticipated the harm despite the condition's potential obviousness, given the circumstances and the road being the sole egress.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","wrongful-death","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173754","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-lee-v-missouri-department-of-transportation-d83644","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":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36319:2020-12-29","opinionId":"b05f2d7b-ddf3-581a-af78-41a23a4fde74","slug":"pamela-s-allen-and-kelly-d-allen-plaintiffscross-appellants-v-state-of-mi-d36319","caseName":"PAMELA S. ALLEN and KELLY D. ALLEN, Plaintiffs/Cross-Appellants\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, 32nd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Defendant/Cross-Appellant\nCAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY and CITY OF CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, Defendants/Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36319","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-29","year":2020,"display_summary":"Pamela Allen sued the State of Missouri after falling down hazardous stairs in a courthouse basement, alleging personal injuries due to a dangerous condition of the State's property. The jury found the State 90% at fault, and the trial court entered judgment for Allen. On appeal, the State challenged the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a jury instruction regarding its control of the property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence of the State's knowledge of the dangerous condition and that the jury instruction was not erroneous.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","governmental-immunity","civil-procedure","jury-instructions","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=171014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/pamela-s-allen-and-kelly-d-allen-plaintiffscross-appellants-v-state-of-mi-d36319","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83433:2020-09-15","opinionId":"794d776f-65b4-561d-b068-2b7fa0c85c46","slug":"michelle-eickhoff-et-al-v-douglas-gelbach-et-al-d83433","caseName":"Michelle Eickhoff, Et Al.,\nvs. \nDouglas Gelbach, Et Al.","caseNumber":"WD83433","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-09-15","year":2020,"display_summary":"Michelle Eickhoff sued her landlords, Douglas and Rhonda Gelbach, for injuries sustained after falling down a staircase without a handrail at their rental property. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Gelbachs on claims of general negligence, negligence per se, premises liability, and loss of consortium. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the landlords' retained control over the property and holding that city ordinances can define a landlord's common law duty for negligence claims. However, the court denied the claim that the landlord had a duty to disclose the ordinance, as the lack of a handrail was discoverable by the tenants.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","landlord-tenant","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=165843","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michelle-eickhoff-et-al-v-douglas-gelbach-et-al-d83433","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"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":"moappsd:sd36351:2020-03-13","opinionId":"52e05658-b4f2-53db-a505-4ddf457578c7","slug":"minor-at-by-her-natural-father-and-next-friend-rt-plaintiff-appellant-v-r-d36351","caseName":"MINOR A.T., by her natural father, and Next Friend R.T., Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nROGER and KIMBERLY SATTERFIELD, Defendants-Respondents\nand\nSTACEY WYATT, Defendant","caseNumber":"SD36351","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-03-13","year":2020,"display_summary":"A minor child, A.T., through her father, sued Roger and Kimberly Satterfield for personal injuries from a dog bite. The Satterfields owned the property where the dog was kept by their tenant's roommate, Stacey Wyatt, who owned the dog. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Satterfields, finding insufficient evidence of vicious propensities or the Satterfields' knowledge thereof. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Satterfields could not be held liable as harborers of the dog because they did not make the animal part of their household, consistent with Missouri law on landlord liability for animal-related injuries.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","personal-injury","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=151834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/minor-at-by-her-natural-father-and-next-friend-rt-plaintiff-appellant-v-r-d36351","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":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"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":"moappsd:sd36791:2020-02-23","opinionId":"cd3f1019-c198-518b-bd6b-395594006854","slug":"minor-jd-by-her-mother-and-next-friend-ao-plaintiff-appellant-v-richard-p-d36791","caseName":"Minor J.D., by her mother and Next Friend A.O., Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nRICHARD PARRISH, and MARY PARRISH, Defendants-Respondents\nand\nLEE RICHMOND, and STEPHANIE LOWER, Defendants","caseNumber":"SD36791","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-02-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"Minor J.D., through her mother A.O., sued landlords Richard and Mary Parrish for personal injuries J.D. sustained from a dog bite on the landlords' property, where the dog was owned by their tenant. The trial court granted summary judgment for the landlords, concluding that the plaintiff could not produce evidence that the landlords owned, possessed, or harbored the dog. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Missouri common law does not extend liability for harm caused by domestic animals beyond owners, possessors, or harborers.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=174013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/minor-jd-by-her-mother-and-next-friend-ao-plaintiff-appellant-v-richard-p-d36791","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":"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":"moappwd:wd82425:2020-02-18","opinionId":"7cd13e1a-2279-5d55-ad65-eed03dba1827","slug":"bradley-bearden-v-missouri-valley-college-et-al-d82425","caseName":"Bradley Bearden\nvs.\nMissouri Valley College, et al.","caseNumber":"WD82425","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-02-18","year":2020,"display_summary":"Bradley Bearden sued Missouri Valley College (MVC) for negligence and premises liability after sustaining an injury during a fraternity initiation. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of MVC, finding no duty or causation. Bearden subsequently filed a voluntary dismissal of the entire cause of action without prejudice. The appellate court dismissed Bearden's appeal, concluding that the voluntary dismissal rendered the partial summary judgment a nullity and thus not a final appealable judgment, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","negligence","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=150313","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bradley-bearden-v-missouri-valley-college-et-al-d82425","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:ed107780:2020-02-11","opinionId":"12a08c94-3fac-5d8c-94b3-4232a28d1a0c","slug":"patricia-watson-appellant-v-city-of-st-peters-respondent-107780","caseName":"Patricia Watson, Appellant, vs. City of St. Peters, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED107780","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-02-11","year":2020,"display_summary":"Patricia Watson sued the City of St. Peters for negligence after she was injured when her bicycle wheel entered a storm water sump inlet extending into a sidewalk. The jury found for the City, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence of the City's pre-accident citywide program to address sump inlet conditions. This evidence was not excludable as a subsequent remedial measure and was material to proving the City's knowledge of the dangerous condition.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","evidence","negligence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=150076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patricia-watson-appellant-v-city-of-st-peters-respondent-107780","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":"moappsd:sd35962:2019-11-12","opinionId":"db4f1420-0c78-514a-ba23-4fa535853a0f","slug":"donna-cowgur-plaintiff-appellant-v-joel-murphy-jessica-murphy-defendants-d35962","caseName":"DONNA COWGUR, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nJOEL MURPHY, JESSICA MURPHY, Defendants-Respondents\nJEFFERY SPROUS, LISA SPROUS and JOHN DOE REALTY, Defendants","caseNumber":"SD35962","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-11-12","year":2019,"display_summary":"Donna Cowgur sued Joel and Jessica Murphy for personal injuries sustained from falling into a hole on their property, which they leased to third parties. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Murphys, finding no genuine dispute that they lacked knowledge of the hole's existence. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Cowgur's evidence regarding the Murphys' right to inspect the property and a \"for sale\" sign did not create a reasonable inference of actual or constructive knowledge of the specific hole that caused her injury.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","landlord-tenant","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donna-cowgur-plaintiff-appellant-v-joel-murphy-jessica-murphy-defendants-d35962","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":"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:sc96977:2019-07-16","opinionId":"77d18e80-a03b-51af-8eee-7ad86587f767","slug":"state-ex-rel-cedar-crest-apartments-llc-and-peterson-properties-inc-dba-t-c96977","caseName":"State ex rel. Cedar Crest Apartments, LLC and Peterson Properties, Inc. d/b/a The Peterson Companies, Relators, vs. The Honorable Jack Grate, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC96977","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2019-07-16","year":2019,"display_summary":"Lincoln Rene Aguiriano Martinez filed a personal injury lawsuit in Jackson County, Missouri, against Kansas business entities Cedar Crest Apartments, LLC and Peterson Properties, Inc., alleging injuries sustained at a Kansas apartment complex. The Relators sought a writ of prohibition after the circuit court denied their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Missouri Supreme Court made the preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the Relators' contacts with Missouri were insufficient to establish either general or specific personal jurisdiction, and declining to impute the Missouri contacts of a related Missouri corporation to the Relators.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=142454","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-cedar-crest-apartments-llc-and-peterson-properties-inc-dba-t-c96977","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"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":"moappwd:wd81874:2019-06-04","opinionId":"10a2e39a-b992-5691-b4a9-f4f6d5313463","slug":"sherri-l-scholdberg-v-kurt-scholdberg-d81874","caseName":"Sherri L. Scholdberg\nvs.\nKurt Scholdberg","caseNumber":"WD81874","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-06-04","year":2019,"display_summary":"Sherri L. Scholdberg sued Kurt Scholdberg for premises liability after a railing on his porch broke, causing her to fall. The trial court granted summary judgment for Mr. Scholdberg, finding Ms. Scholdberg, as a licensee, failed to produce evidence that Mr. Scholdberg had actual knowledge of the railing's dangerous condition. The appellate court affirmed, holding that circumstantial evidence suggesting Mr. Scholdberg should have known was insufficient to establish the actual knowledge required for a licensee under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=140854","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sherri-l-scholdberg-v-kurt-scholdberg-d81874","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:wd81728:2019-02-19","opinionId":"88e8b4b5-0522-539a-98c3-f30f68959029","slug":"kls-v-union-pacific-railroad-and-timothy-espy-d81728","caseName":"K.L.S.\nvs.\nUnion Pacific Railroad and Timothy Espy","caseNumber":"WD81728","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-02-19","year":2019,"display_summary":"K.L.S., a City employee, sued Union Pacific Railroad and Timothy Espy for negligence and negligence per se after she was attacked in a public alleyway while photographing zoning violations on an adjacent property. The trial court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific. On appeal, K.L.S. argued that Union Pacific owed her a duty of care and that the trial court erred by not striking certain affidavits. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Union Pacific owed no duty to K.L.S. for an attack by an unknown third party in a public alleyway not owned or adjacent to Union Pacific's property, and that the motion to strike affidavits became moot when Union Pacific withdrew them.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=136939","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kls-v-union-pacific-railroad-and-timothy-espy-d81728","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":"moappsd:sd35093:2018-09-26","opinionId":"f78445e6-1849-5e33-9266-1c1a97578ff8","slug":"glenda-marie-potter-plaintiff-appellant-v-hy-vee-inc-defendant-respondent-d35093","caseName":"GLENDA MARIE POTTER, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nHY-VEE, INC., Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD35093","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-09-26","year":2018,"display_summary":"Glenda Potter, a business invitee, sued Hy-Vee, Inc. for premises liability after she fell in one of its stores. A jury found in favor of Hy-Vee, and Potter appealed, alleging instructional error and improper admission of expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the verdict-director instruction, the admission of an orthopedic expert's testimony on the cause of the fall, or the admission of experimental evidence regarding floor slip-resistance.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","jury-instructions","evidence","negligence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=131193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/glenda-marie-potter-plaintiff-appellant-v-hy-vee-inc-defendant-respondent-d35093","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:ed106104:2018-08-14","opinionId":"6527ed66-4faf-5c12-a87c-b1f8d7d2f5bc","slug":"elizabeth-rhodes-and-david-rhodes-respondents-v-kandlbinder-inc-dba-zx-co-106104","caseName":"Elizabeth Rhodes and David Rhodes, Respondents, vs. Kandlbinder, Inc., d/b/a ZX Convenience Store, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED106104","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-08-14","year":2018,"display_summary":"Elizabeth Rhodes was injured after tripping over a step at Kandlbinder, Inc.'s convenience store, leading to a jury verdict finding Kandlbinder 80% at fault for premises liability and awarding Rhodes $480,000. Kandlbinder appealed, arguing the trial court erred by giving a jury instruction that focused solely on the failure to remove the step, rather than offering a disjunctive instruction including failure to warn. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the instruction correctly stated Missouri law and was supported by substantial evidence that the step, even with a warning, was not reasonably safe and required removal.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","jury-instructions","negligence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129056","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/elizabeth-rhodes-and-david-rhodes-respondents-v-kandlbinder-inc-dba-zx-co-106104","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":"moappsd:sd39073:undated","opinionId":"6a788f1b-73c0-5d0d-a606-ffef3738341e","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-viva-roberts-relator-v-the-honorable-joseph-hens-d39073","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. VIVA ROBERTS, Relator\nv. \nTHE HONORABLE JOSEPH HENSLEY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD39073","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2026,"display_summary":"Relator Viva Roberts filed a personal injury lawsuit in Jasper County, Missouri, which the trial court transferred to Howell County due to improper venue. Roberts sought a writ of mandamus, arguing the defendant's motion to transfer venue was untimely under Rule 51.045 because it was filed more than 60 days after the initial or first amended petition. The appellate court quashed the preliminary writ of mandamus, holding that the filing of a second amended petition, which abandoned prior pleadings, reset the 60-day clock for the defendant to file its motion to transfer venue, making the motion timely.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","personal-injury","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230042","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-viva-roberts-relator-v-the-honorable-joseph-hens-d39073","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":"moappwd:wd86378:undated","opinionId":"558b6449-bde0-5eef-a6b9-590f081aea36","slug":"brandie-c-noble-v-ld-enterprises-inc-d86378","caseName":"Brandie C. Noble\nvs. \nL.D. Enterprises, Inc.","caseNumber":"WD86378","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Brandie C. Noble appealed the trial court's dismissal of her negligence claim against L.D. Enterprises, Inc. with prejudice. The dismissal was imposed as a sanction under Rule 61.01 for Noble's repeated failure to timely and properly respond to discovery requests. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in imposing the dismissal sanction given Noble's pattern of deliberate disregard for discovery rules and court orders.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","negligence","premises-liability"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206678","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brandie-c-noble-v-ld-enterprises-inc-d86378","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":"moappwd:wd87735:undated","opinionId":"9f382ec8-dc30-5961-ae79-25e7319a1a2a","slug":"larry-brandes-v-bothwell-regional-health-center-d87735","caseName":"Larry Brandes\nvs. \nBothwell Regional Health Center","caseNumber":"WD87735","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Larry Brandes sued Bothwell Regional Health Center for negligence after falling on ice at the hospital's entrance while visiting his injured wife. The trial court granted summary judgment for Bothwell, applying the Massachusetts Rule which states that a land possessor has no duty to remove naturally accumulated snow and ice that is general to the community. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Massachusetts Rule is not an affirmative defense, the uncontroverted facts established its applicability, and Bothwell did not assume a duty to remove the snow and ice by a course of conduct.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","summary-judgment","negligence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227237","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/larry-brandes-v-bothwell-regional-health-center-d87735","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":"moappwd:wd87719:undated","opinionId":"81e90c84-19b3-5b0e-8ca1-1253eb0f419a","slug":"cari-bossow-murdock-v-premier-parking-services-inc-d87719","caseName":"Cari Bossow-Murdock\nvs.\nPremier Parking Services, Inc","caseNumber":"WD87719","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2026,"display_summary":"Cari Bossow-Murdock sued Premier Parking Services, Inc., for negligence after tripping over a metal sign in a parking lot. The trial court granted summary judgment for Premier, finding no duty of care, and struck portions of a witness's affidavit, while denying Premier's motion for summary judgment based on a release. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Premier's duty of care and that Appellant's summary judgment responses were adequate. The court affirmed the striking of the affidavit and the denial of summary judgment based on the release.","primaryTopic":"premises-liability","topicSlugs":["premises-liability","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cari-bossow-murdock-v-premier-parking-services-inc-d87719","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"},{"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"}]}]}