Opinion issued January 25, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
In Kivland, the Supreme Court of Missouri reiterated that, in a wrongful death lawsuit, the guiding standard for expert witness testimony is Mo. Rev. Stat. section 490.065 in which the plaintiff must show that an expert witness is both qualified and capable of clarifying the issues for the trier of fact. In a wrongful death lawsuit, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was both the direct and proximate cause of the decedent’s death. In this case, the issue was whether the plaintiff had satisfactorily demonstrated the proximate cause element. The court ruled that the element was satisfied when the plaintiff’s expert witness testified in a deposition that the deceased was driven to suicide after an alleged botched surgery resulted in severe, debilitating pain. The court added that the decedent’s mental state was immaterial to the admissibility of the expert witness. The summary judgment was partially reversed and remanded.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Moore v. Ford Motor Co.[1]
Opinion handed down January 25, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
In Moore, the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and remanded the trial court’s directed verdict against the owners of an automobile on their claims that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn them of the risks associated with the front seats of the vehicle in the event of a rear-end collision. The court affirmed judgments of the trial court regarding the submission of expert testimony and the inadmissibility of some testimony of the automobile owner.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
In Moore, the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed and remanded the trial court’s directed verdict against the owners of an automobile on their claims that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn them of the risks associated with the front seats of the vehicle in the event of a rear-end collision. The court affirmed judgments of the trial court regarding the submission of expert testimony and the inadmissibility of some testimony of the automobile owner.
Howard v. City of Kansas City[1]
Opinion handed down January 25, 2011
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a Kansas City municipal court judge is considered an “employee” under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Additionally, as a matter of first impression, the court held that municipalities are liable for punitive damages under the MHRA just like any other employer.
Link to Mo. Sup. Ct. Opinion
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a Kansas City municipal court judge is considered an “employee” under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Additionally, as a matter of first impression, the court held that municipalities are liable for punitive damages under the MHRA just like any other employer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)