Missouri Department of Transportation Missouri Cases
This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.
Party ID
missouri-department-of-transportation
Cases Shown
3
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
Archive note: 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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Related Practice Pages
Practical guidance connected to this party profile
These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.
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.
The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) appealed the circuit court's decision to quash a preliminary writ of prohibition. MoDOT sought to prevent the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission from accepting additional evidence in a workers' compensation case, arguing it exceeded the Supreme Court's mandate in a prior appeal. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the Supreme Court's remand for "further proceedings" and "a proper review" allowed the Commission discretion to accept additional evidence to meet a newly clarified objective standard for mental injury claims.