Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Twelve-year-old Jessica Chavez filed a negligence suit against Cedar Fair, LP after she was injured on a ride at Oceans of Fun Water Park. Cedar Fair owned and operated the water park. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Chavez. Cedar Fair appealed, asserting, among other things, that the trial court erred in submitting a jury instruction that defined “negligence” as the failure to use the “highest degree of care.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Cedar Fair’s liability should be assessed using the highest degree of care standard for negligence rather than the ordinary degree of care standard. View "Chavez v. Cedar Fair, LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was injured while participating in a motorcycle training course sponsored by Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, Inc. (Harley-Davidson) and conducted by employees of Gateway Harley-Davidson (Gateway). Plaintiff filed a personal injury action against Harley-Davidson and Gateway (together, Defendants). Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of a liability release Plaintiff had signed before participating in the course. The circuit court sustained the motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the liability release was unenforceable against claims of gross negligence or recklessness and that there was a genuine dispute as to whether Defendants were grossly negligent or reckless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to show that a genuine dispute existed regarding whether Defendants acted in reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s safety, and therefore, whether the release was unenforceable. View "DeCormier v. Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Twelve Plaintiffs filed suit against Synergy, LLC and Kenoma, LLC (collectively, Synergy), alleging that Synergy’s large-scale hog operations constituted a temporary nuisance. The trial court entered judgment against Synergy awarding Plaintiffs damages on their tort claims. After the court of appeals issued its mandate, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to award post-judgment interest, set the post-judgment interest rate, and affix their costs. The trial court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and entered a nunc pro tunc journal entry awarding Plaintiffs statutory post-judgment interest on the damages awarded on their tort claims. The Supreme Court reversed the provisions of the judgment setting an interest rate and awarding post-judgment interest in the judgment, holding that the trial court erred in issuing a nunc pro tunc judgment to retroactively include post-judgment statutory interest in its original judgment. View "McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC" on Justia Law

The widow of a man killed in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist (UM) sued her and her husband’s automobile liability insurance carrier seeking UM coverage for her husband’s wrongful death. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, ruling that the insurer’s liability was limited to an “owned-vehicle” partial exclusion in the couple’s policies that limited coverage when the insured was injured while occupying a vehicle owned by the insured but not covered by the policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, because the partial exclusion was clear and unambiguous, the trial court did not err in finding that the partial exclusion limited the insurer’s liability in this case. View "Floyd-Tunnell v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) requires employers to withhold RRTA taxes on a personal injury plaintiff’s Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) suit. Plaintiff in this case received a judgment on his FELA claim against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF). BNSF tendered less than what it owed on the judgment, claiming that it was required to treat the judgment as if it were for lost wages and therefore subject to RRTA withholding taxes. The trial court concluded that BNSF failed to satisfy the judgment and ordered Safeco Insurance Company, BNSF’s surety, to pay Plaintiff the withheld amount. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that damages received through a suit or settlement for personal injuries are normally not subject to retirement taxes, and holding that BNSF was incorrect in arguing that the RRTA creates an exception to this law for railroad retirement taxes. View "Mickey v. BNSF Ry. Co." on Justia Law

Patrick O’Basuyi filed suit against several defendants (collectively, “TriStar”) for breach of contract, quantum meruit and fraudulent conveyance. TriStar responded by filing a counterclaim for malicious prosecution. O’Basuyi filed a motion for separate trial of TriStar’s counterclaims. The trial court overruled the motion for separate trial, determining that Mo. R. Civ. P. 55.06, which governs joinder of claims, authorized its denial of O’Basuyi’s motion for separate trial of the malicious prosecution claim. O’Basuyi subsequently sought a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court granted the request writ, holding (1) Rule 55.06 does not permit either joinder or trial of a malicious prosecution counterclaim with the underlying claim; and (2) therefore, the trial court erred in permitting the joint trial of the defendants’ counterclaim and O’Basuyi’s claims. View "State ex rel. O'Basuyi v. Hon. David Lee Vincent III" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this negligence action against the Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation after he was allegedly injured when he was hit in the eye with a hotdog thrown by Sluggerrr, the Kansas City Royals mascot. During the trial, the trial judge gave an instruction to the jury asking the jurors to decide whether the risk of suffering an injury by being struck by a hotdog thrown by Sluggerrr was one of the inherent risks in watching a Royals baseball game that Plaintiff assumed merely by attending the game. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Royals. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded, holding (1) whether a particular risk is inherent in watching a sporting event is a question of law for the court, not a question of fact for the jury; and (2) in this case, the risk of being injured by the mascot’s hotdog toss is not one of the inherent risks of attending a Royals game. View "Coomer v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp." on Justia Law

Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP represented Brian Nail in a dispute with his former employer over Nail’s stock options. Husch Blackwell negotiated a settlement that extended Nail’s option period, but Nail was prevented from obtaining the stock due to complications. Nail subsequently filed a legal malpractice suit against Husch Blackwell, arguing that the law firm negligently advised him regarding his remedies and negligently drafted the settlement agreement. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Husch Blackwell. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Nail failed to prove that Husch Blackwell’s alleged negligence caused his claimed damages. View "Nail v. Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed wrongful death and lost chance of recovery claims against Defendants-health care providers. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their first case but refiled the same claims in a second case. The trial court dismissed the second case for failure to file health care affidavits as required by Mo. Rev. Stat. 538.225. In their third case, Plaintiffs refiled their petition, along with the required affidavits. The trial court dismissed the third case as barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing the second and third cases, holding (1) Plaintiffs failed to preserve their constitutional challenges to section 538.225 and failed to show they had substantially complied with the statute; and (2) the trial court correctly applied the statute of limitations in finding that the claims in the third case were time barred. View "Mayes v. Saint Luke’s Hosp. of Kansas City" on Justia Law

After Central Trust and Investment Company purchased Springfield Trust & Investment Company (STC), Central Trust filed an action against SignalPoint Asset Management, LLC, a registered investment advisor, for affiliating with STC’s ex-employee, who had acquired STC’s client list and had become an independent advisor representative of SignalPoint. The circuit court entered summary judgment in favor of SignalPoint on its claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with business relations, and civil conspiracy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Central Trust did not demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether SignalPoint “misappropriated” Central Trust’s client list as that term is defined by the Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (2) this failure also justified the grant of summary judgment against Central Trust’s claim of tortious interference with business relations; and (3) Central Trust’s civil conspiracy claim was moot. View "Cent. Trust & Inv. Co. v. SignalPoint Asset Mgmt., LLC" on Justia Law