345 S.W.3d 297
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Decedent James Edward Evans died in a July 17, 2007 motor-vehicle collision with a tractor-trailer operated by Smith for FirstFleet, Inc.
- Evans's son and Evans's mother, Childs, brought a wrongful-death action alleging defendants' negligence; punitive damages were pursued but later abandoned.
- Tracy Hancock attempted to intervene as a surviving-spouse; the trial court denied intervention for lack of evidence of a common-law Texas marriage.
- Immediately before trial, defendants admitted negligence and causation; the case was tried on damages only; the jury awarded $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, split equally between Evans and Childs.
- The trial court apportioned the $1,000,000 compensatory award equally between Evans and Childs; defendants moved for remittitur or new trial, which were denied.
- Defendants appealed, challenging remittitur/new trial denials and exclusion of certain testimony by Tracy Hancock.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remittitur denial was an abuse of discretion | Evans/Childs contend the award is reasonable under §537.090 and evidence supports non-economic damages. | FirstFleet/Smith argue the verdict is excessive, especially for non-economic loss, and should be remitted or a new trial granted. | No abuse of discretion; verdict supported by substantial evidence and weight of comparable factors. |
| Whether the denial of a new trial was an abuse of discretion due to alleged jury misconduct | Plaintiffs claim jury misconduct not shown; trial counsel's remarks did not prejudice the verdict. | Defendants assert jury was confused/influenced by counsel regarding attorney’s fees. | No abuse of discretion; jury misconduct not shown and the inquiry did not prove bias or prejudice requiring a new trial. |
| Whether exclusion of Tracy Hancock testimony was reversible error | Hancock testimony about decedent's relationship with Evans was relevant to damages under §537.090. | Exclusion was error and prejudicial to defendants; testimony would affect damages calculation. | No reversible error; exclusion did not prejudice the outcome; damages are governed by the statutory framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Friendly Ford, Inc., 248 S.W.3d 665 (Mo.App.2008) (deference to jury damages; remittitur if excessive)
- McGathey v. Davis, 281 S.W.3d 312 (Mo.App.2009) (jury's discretion in evaluating damages)
- Barnett v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca France, 963 S.W.2d 639 (Mo.App.1997) (weight given to comparable cases; factors in damages analysis)
- Knifong v. Caterpillar, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 922 (Mo.App.2006) (awards in comparable cases; abuse of discretion standard)
- Letz v. Turbomeca Engine Corp., 975 S.W.2d 155 (Mo.App.1997) (wrongful-death damages framework under §537.090)
- Banner ex rel. Bolduc v. Owsley, 305 S.W.3d 498 (Mo.App.2010) (consideration of reasonable value of services and loss of consortium)
- Henderson v. Fields, 68 S.W.3d 455 (Mo.App.2001) (loss of consortium assessment in wrongful-death context)
- Coggins v. Laclede Gas Co., 37 S.W.3d 335 (Mo.App.2000) (appellate review of damages; substantial evidence standard)