Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Because Plaintiffs in these two personal injury suits failed to allege a breach of a duty unrelated to employment or a breach of workplace safety that was so unforeseeable to the employer as to take it outside the employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff’s co-employees (Defendants).Plaintiffs in both cases were injured on the job. Plaintiffs sued Defendants for common law negligence, arguing that Defendants breached a duty separate and distinct from their employers’ duty to provide a safe workplace. In each case, the trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was properly granted under Parr v. Breeden, 489 S.W.3d 774, 778 (Mo. banc 2016) and Peters v. Wady Industries, Inc., 489 S.W.3d 784, 789-90 (Mo. banc 2016). View "Conner v. Ogletree" on Justia Law

In this personal injury suit, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant under Parr v. Breeden, 489 S.W.3d 774, 778 (Mo. banc 2016) and Peters v. Wady Industries, Inc., 489 S.W.3d 784, 789-90 (Mo. banc 2016).Matthew Fogerty brought this action against Larry Meyer, his co-employee, seeking damages for injuries he sustained while the parties were working together. After the accident, Fogerty filed and settled a workers’ compensation claim for his injuries. Fogerty then filed this personal injury lawsuit against Meyer. Meyer filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Fogerty failed to show that Meyer breached a duty separate and distinct from the employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace. The circuit court agreed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Meyer’s negligence was a breach of the employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace, not a breach of a duty “separate and distinct” from the employer’s duty. View "Fogerty v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court concluding that Plaintiff’s wrongful death action was barred by the exclusivity provision in Missouri’s workers’ compensation statutes, Mo. Rev. Stat. 287.120.Edward McComb died while driving a vehicle for his employer. Plaintiff, McComb's widow, brought this suit against McComb’s supervisory co-employees (collectively, Defendants). The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that whether McComb’s death was attributable to his employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace was a question of fact for a jury to decide, thus precluding summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendants owed McComb a duty separate and distinct from his employer’s nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace, and therefore, summary judgment was properly granted under Parr v. Breeden, 489 S.W.3d 774, 778 (Mo. banc 2016) and Peters v. Wady Industries, Inc., 489 S.W.3d 784, 789-90 (Mo. banc 2016). View "McComb v. Norfus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the motion court’s judgment denying Appellant postconviction relief on his twelve claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, two claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and claims challenging the constitutional validity of Mo. Rev. Stat. 562.076 regarding voluntary intoxication and the time limits. Appellant filed his motion under Mo. R. Crim. P. 29.15. In affirming, the Supreme Court held (1) the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous; and (2) the motion court’s judgment regarding an unpreserved claim of error was not plainly erroneous. View "Collings v. State" on Justia Law

The circuit court did not err in sustaining Defendants’ motions to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to warrant authorizing search of a residence for stolen items.On appeal, the State argued that, while no probable cause existed for a provision of the search warrant form authorizing a search for any deceased human fetus or corpse, the circuit court should have applied the severance doctrine to redact the invalid portion of the warrant and suppress only the evidence seized pursuant to the invalid portion. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing to apply the severance doctrine and in suppressing all evidence seized because the invalid portions of the search warrant so contaminated the whole warrant that they could not be redacted pursuant to the severance doctrine. View "State v. Gaulter" on Justia Law

The circuit court did not err in sustaining Defendants’ motions to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to warrant authorizing search of a residence for stolen items.On appeal, the State argued that, while no probable cause existed for a provision of the search warrant form authorizing a search for any deceased human fetus or corpse, the circuit court should have applied the severance doctrine to redact the invalid portion of the warrant and suppress only the evidence seized pursuant to the invalid portion. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing to apply the severance doctrine and in suppressing all evidence seized because the invalid portions of the search warrant so contaminated the whole warrant that they could not be redacted pursuant to the severance doctrine. View "State v. Gaulter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Administration Hearing Commission (AHC) affirming the Missouri Ethics Commission’s (MEC) imposition of fees arising from the failure to Robin Wright-Jones and Wright-Jones for Senate (collectively, Appellants) to comply with the rules of Mo. Rev. Stat. chapter 130. The court also affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding that Mo. Rev. Stat. 105.961.4(6) was not unconstitutional. On appeal, Appellants claimed that the monetary fees assessed by the MEC violated Mo. Const. art. I, section 31. Specifically, Appellants argued that, pursuant to section 105.961.4(6), the MEC may not assess fines for violations of state statutes, regulations, or rules. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) there was no improper delegation of authority to the MEC; (2) the AHC’s decision was supported by the record; and (3) the assessed fees were not excessive. View "Wright-Jones v. Missouri Ethics Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Administration Hearing Commission (AHC) affirming the Missouri Ethics Commission’s (MEC) imposition of fees arising from the failure to Robin Wright-Jones and Wright-Jones for Senate (collectively, Appellants) to comply with the rules of Mo. Rev. Stat. chapter 130. The court also affirmed the judgment of the circuit court finding that Mo. Rev. Stat. 105.961.4(6) was not unconstitutional. On appeal, Appellants claimed that the monetary fees assessed by the MEC violated Mo. Const. art. I, section 31. Specifically, Appellants argued that, pursuant to section 105.961.4(6), the MEC may not assess fines for violations of state statutes, regulations, or rules. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) there was no improper delegation of authority to the MEC; (2) the AHC’s decision was supported by the record; and (3) the assessed fees were not excessive. View "Wright-Jones v. Missouri Ethics Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Plaintiff on her claim of negligence alleging that Defendant, her employer, breached its duty to protect her from the criminal act of a third person on its premises. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in submitting a verdict director to the jury that was not supported by substantial evidence and erred in allowing Plaintiff to make arguments to the jury that misstated the law as instructed in the verdict director. The Supreme Court held (1) the allegation of error made in Defendant’s first point on appeal was not properly preserved; and (2) Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "Wieland v. Owner-Operator Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in favor of Plaintiff on her claim of negligence alleging that Defendant, her employer, breached its duty to protect her from the criminal act of a third person on its premises. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in submitting a verdict director to the jury that was not supported by substantial evidence and erred in allowing Plaintiff to make arguments to the jury that misstated the law as instructed in the verdict director. The Supreme Court held (1) the allegation of error made in Defendant’s first point on appeal was not properly preserved; and (2) Defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "Wieland v. Owner-Operator Services, Inc." on Justia Law