333 S.W.3d 522
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- On Feb 19, 2000, Masten, eastbound on Highway 52, encountered Goltz with high beams; after attempts to pass, Masten parked in a driveway and Goltz passed.
- Goltz then continued, Masten re-entered the highway; on a hill, Masten’s high beams; Goltz braked; Masten collided with Goltz’s rear.
- Goltz initially told police she was not injured; later that night she sought hospital care for headaches; exams showed no neck injury and normal X-rays.
- Goltz sought treatment over time for headaches and neck pain following the accident.
- On Feb 8, 2005 Goltz filed suit against Masten for damages; trial occurred Sept 29–30, 2009.
- Jury found 50% fault to each party; total damages assessed at $11,000; trial court entered judgment; amended to reflect Masten 100% at fault, Goltz awarded $11,000.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a mistrial should have been sua sponte declared | Goltz requests mistrial after ticket question. | Objection sustained; no request for further relief. | Denied; not preserved for mistrial; plain error review not warranted. |
| Whether comparative negligence instruction was proper | Evidence supported Goltz stopping; instruction should apply. | Instruction valid; standard applied. | Properly submitted; any prejudice forfeited when Masten was found 100% at fault on final judgment. |
| Whether cumulative-error doctrine warranted a new trial | Errors cumulatively prejudicial. | No reversible errors; no prejudice shown. | No cumulative error; motion for new trial denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Barr, 62 S.W.3d 509 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (failure to request further relief; preserved error requirement)
- Chilton v. Gorden, 952 S.W.2d 773 (Mo.App. S.D.1997) (preservation rules; plain error review limits)
- Hayes v. Price, 313 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. banc 2010) (de novo review of jury instructions; substantial evidence standard)
- Thompson v. Marler, 286 S.W.3d 261 (Mo.App. S.D.2009) (comparative fault standards; jury submission of fault)
- Bach v. Winfield-Foley Fire Prot. Dist., 257 S.W.3d 605 (Mo. banc 2008) (instructional error review; prejudice standard)
- Atkinson v. Corson, 289 S.W.3d 269 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (plain-error standard in civil cases; egregiousness required)
- Winfield v. State, 93 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. banc 2002) (plain-error review in civil cases)
- Ziolkowski v. Heartland Reg'l Med. Ctr., 317 S.W.3d 212 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (cumulative-error analysis in civil cases)