409 S.W.3d 508
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- On July 5, 2004, Officer Hawley drove in the left lane toward an intersection to pass Goudeaux, causing a collision.
- Goudeaux sustained neck, back, and left shoulder injuries with approximately $206,000 in medical expenses.
- Goudeaux sued Hawley, the Board, and the City, alleging negligence and negligence per se; Board/City answered with multiple defenses including comparative fault.
- The case was tried to a jury on negligence per se theory for section 304.016.4 and comparative fault.
- Jury allocated 50% fault to Goudeaux and 50% to Appellants, awarding $618,000 in damages; judgment reduced to $309,000 against Appellants.
- Appellants moved for remittitur/JNOV/new trial; trial court denied, and Appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence per se was properly submitted | Goudeaux. | Hawley/Board. | Negligence per se properly submitted; no error in instruction. |
| Whether the damages award was properly upheld given a claimed judicial admission | Goudeaux did not make a binding admission capping damages. | Goudeaux allegedly admitted $309,000 as damages in closing. | Damages upheld; closing argument did not constitute a clear judicial admission; remittitur denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Frontier II Props. Ltd. P’ship, 106 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (negligence per se framework and admissibility guidance)
- King v. Morgan, 873 S.W.2d 272 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (evidentiary sufficiency for negligence per se instruction)
- Roach v. Lacho, 402 S.W.2d 344 (Mo. 1966) (section 304.016.4 scope beyond overtaking/passing)
- Robb v. Wallace, 371 S.W.2d 232 (Mo. 1963) (negligence per se and justification/exception concepts)
- Robison v. Cameron, 118 S.W.3d 638 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (excuse/justification within negligence per se framework)
- State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transportation Comm’n v. Union Terminal Ry. Co., 633 S.W.2d 429 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982) (closing argument not binding admissions; limits of judicial admissions)
- Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Crown Power & Equipment, L.L.C., 385 S.W.3d 445 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (judicial admissions and remittitur context)
- Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) (abrogation of contributory negligence and standards of care)
- Wheeler v. Phenix, 335 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (excuse/justification defense and MAI 17.17 notes on use)
- MAI 17.17 Notes on Use, notes cited in opinion (2002) (notes on how undue discretion and defenses apply in negligence per se cases)