Adkins v. Hontz
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 316
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Malorie Adkins died at age thirteen in a Kansas car crash when Jill Hontz lost control on U.S. 36 while transporting four children.
- Plaintiffs Natalie and Bryan Adkins sought wrongful death damages and Malorie’s estate pursued a survival action for pre-death injuries; liability was admitted by Hontz at trial.
- Jury verdicts awarded damages in the wrongful death case and a separate award for conscious pain and suffering in the survival action; judgments were entered January 26, 2010.
- The case was consolidated in Buchanan County, Missouri after removal of a forum non conveniens issue; post-trial motions led to an Amended Judgment later deemed a nullity.
- Plaintiffs and Hontz cross-appealed challenging various trial rulings, damages, offsets/credits, and punitive damages issues; several points were deemed moot due to the Amended Judgment’s status.
- The Western District affirmed the trial court’s decision on all issues presented on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire on damages bias | Adkins contends voir dire exclusion biased the venire regarding damages. | Hontz argues the court appropriately limited questions to promote efficient management of juror questioning. | Point One denied. |
| Admission of expert on future care costs | Zimmerman’s opinion on future care costs should be admitted for lack of common knowledge | Testimony not relevant or reliable and would mislead the jury | Point Two denied. |
| Offset/credit for PIP payments | Court lacked authority to apply offset under Rule 75.01; PIP credits should reduce judgment. | Amended Judgment moot; credit already addressed in prior judgment; proper procedures followed. | Point Three moot/denied as moot. |
| Cap on non-economic damages | Cap on non-economic damages under Kansas law unconstitutional as applied to this case. | Cap upheld by Kansas law; constitutional under Kansas precedent; court should apply cap. | Point Four denied. |
| Punitive damages submissibility in survival action | Evidence supports punitive damages for Hontz’s conduct. | No submissible case for punitive damages; conduct did not meet Kansas standard for wantonness. | Point Five denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pollard v. Whitener, 965 S.W.2d 281 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (voir dire discretion and prejudice standard)
- Oates, 12 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. banc 2000) (trial court discretion in voir dire)
- Ashcroft v. TAD Res. Int'l, 972 S.W.2d 502 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (limits on punitive damages inquiry; abuse of discretion standard)
- Wright v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 392 S.W.2d 401 (Mo. 1965) (right to inquire bias; cannot pledge verdict in advance)
- Berra v. Danter, 299 S.W.3d 690 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (abstract damages limit inquiry not reversible error)
- McGinnes v. Wesley Med. Ctr., 43 Kan.App.2d 227 (Kan. App. 2010) (constitutional cap on non-economic damages under Kansas law)
- Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Servs., Inc., 246 Kan. 336 (Kan. 1990) (damages caps constitutional under Kansas law)
- Leiker v. Gafford, 245 Kan. 325 (Kan. 1989) (constitutional cap on damages in Kansas)