Cluck v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.[1]

Opinion handed down May 1, 2012

Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Eddie Cluck sued his employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company, under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. section 51, for an injury caused by a co-worker. Cluck was injured when the co-worker’s personal pistol, which was packed in the co-worker’s luggage, accidentally discharged while Cluck was unloading the luggage from a company van. The court was faced with determining whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies to FELA actions, and if so, whether the court should apply the test to the co-worker’s act of packing a loaded pistol in his luggage or simply his failure to warn anyone about it. The plaintiff argued that respondeat superior does not apply to FELA actions, or in the alternative, should be applied more liberally. The trial court ruled differently, however, finding that traditional common law respondeat superior principles are fully applicable to FELA actions. Because Cluck never asserted that the injury-causing act was in furtherance of the employer’s interests, the trial court ruled that his proposed jury instructions failed to accurately state the applicable law. As a result, Union Pacific prevailed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Cluck’s proposed jury instructions by a vote of 5-2.

State v. Clark[1]

Opinion handed down May 1, 2012

Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Jermane Clark was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in connection with the shooting death of Morris Thompson. The trial court ruled that Clark’s attorney could not cross-examine one of the State’s key witnesses about bias. The witness had expressed a desire to testify against Clark with the hope it would result in leniency in his own potential sentencing for unrelated charges. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the circuit court abused its discretion by not allowing cross-examination of the witness’s bias.

 

First Bank v. Fischer & Frichtel, Inc.[1]

Opinion handed down April 12, 2012

Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

Fischer & Frichtel elected to default on their loan with First Bank.  After First Bank purchased the property at a foreclosure sale, it filed suit against Fischer & Frichtel to recover the unpaid principal and interest on the loan.  Over First Bank’s objection, the trial court instructed the jury to determine any deficiency owed by Fischer & Frichtel by using the fair market value of the property at the time of the foreclosure sale in its calculation.  After a jury verdict, First Bank filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that Missouri law requires the damage instruction to be based on the amount obtained at the foreclosure sale instead of the fair market value.  The trial court agreed and granted a new trial.  On appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri held the damage instruction shall be based on the amount obtained at the foreclosure sale, affirming the trial court’s judgment granting a new trial.

Sanders v. Ahmed[1]

Opinion handed down April 3, 2012

Link to Missouri Supreme Court

Ronald Sanders recovered judgments against Dr. Itekahlm Ahmed for the wrongful death of his wife.  After the jury returned a verdict awarding $9.2 million in non-economic damages, the trial court reduced the original verdict to about $1.25 million in accordance with a state statute that caps non-economic damages.  Sanders subsequently challenged the constitutionality of the damages award cap.  The Supreme Court of Missouri upheld the trial court’s ruling and concluded that the non-economic damages cap that applies to wrongful death cases does not violate the Missouri Constitution. 

Aquila Foreign Qualifications Corp. v. Director of Revenue[1]

Opinion handed down March 6, 2012

Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) erred in finding that Casey’s General Stores were exempt from sales and use tax for the electricity it purchases and uses for its food preparation activities.  The court found that the legislature did not intend the term “processing” to include retail food preparation in Revised Statutes of Missouri § 144.054.2.

Robinson v. Title Lenders, Inc.[1]

Opinion handed down March 6, 2012
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a borrower’s claim of unconscionability must be interpreted in light of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.  Thus, the trial court, instead of limiting its unconscionability considerations to the class arbitration waiver, should have assessed whether the arbitration agreement was enforceable in light of ordinary state law principles that govern contracts but that do not single out or disfavor arbitration.