560 S.W.3d 549
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- In pre-dawn hours, homeless plaintiff Jeffery Harris entered a fenced, vacant warehouse owned by defendant David Jungerman; Harris was shot in the right leg and later struck in the head by Jungerman, resulting in below‑knee amputation and substantial medical expenses.
- Harris sued Jungerman (and two corporations) for battery (and originally assault and negligence), seeking compensatory and punitive damages; negligence and one corporation were dismissed before trial and assault was abandoned at trial.
- Trial was bifurcated under § 510.263: phase one to decide liability/compensatory damages and whether defendant is liable for punitive damages; phase two to determine punitive damages amount if liability found.
- Jury found Jungerman liable for battery, awarded $750,000 compensatory damages in phase one, and found him liable for punitive damages; in phase two the jury awarded $5 million punitive damages.
- Jungerman appealed, raising issues about (1) sufficiency of punitive‑damages pleading, (2) instructional error in phase‑one punitive instruction, and (3) evidentiary rulings excluding evidence of plaintiffs’ drug use and admitting evidence of other post‑incident shootings by Jungerman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of punitive‑damages pleading | Harris alleged battery and incorporated punitive count alleging reckless indifference; punitive count gave fair notice as to battery. | Jungerman argued punitive count only referenced negligence language and therefore did not plead punitive damages for battery. | Court: Pleading sufficient; punitive damages incidental to battery were adequately alleged. |
| Phase‑one punitive instruction (Instruction No. 12) | Harris: instruction (as given) properly informed jury about liability and that amount would be set in second phase. | Jungerman: unmodified MAI 10.01 language misled jury into awarding punitive damages in phase one, creating plain error and prejudicing compensatory award. | Court: No plain error—trial court included language noting further instructions for punitive amount and modified verdict form to specify "compensatory" damages; jury verdicts show lack of confusion. |
| Exclusion of evidence re: Harris/Wallace drug use | Harris argued drug evidence was irrelevant as to impairment at time of shooting and that urinalysis did not establish timing/impairment. | Jungerman argued drug use was relevant to perception, memory, and credibility and should be admitted for impeachment. | Court: Exclusion affirmed—positive drug tests days earlier without evidence of contemporaneous impairment are not probative of ability to perceive/recall and Secrist controls. |
| Admission of other‑acts evidence (post‑shootings) during punitive phase | Harris argued evidence of subsequent shootings and threats showed pattern, disposition, and reprehensibility supporting punitive damages. | Jungerman argued other incidents unrelated to Harris and unfairly prejudicial. | Court: Admission affirmed—evidence of similar subsequent violent acts was relevant to motive, pattern, and reprehensibility for punitive damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. Griffith, 769 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. banc 1989) (punitive damages appropriate for outrageous intentional torts showing evil motive or reckless indifference)
- Amesquita v. Gilster-Mary Lee Corp., 408 S.W.3d 293 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (punitive damages incidental to underlying cause of action)
- Secrist v. Treadstone, LLC, 356 S.W.3d 276 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (positive drug tests alone do not establish impairment at relevant time; inadmissible to prove fault/impairment without contextual evidence)
- Advantage Bldgs. & Exteriors, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 449 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (failure to modify MAI punitive instruction for bifurcation can be reversible error when jury may be misled)
- Estate of Overbey v. Chad Franklin Nat'l Auto Sales North, LLC, 361 S.W.3d 364 (Mo. banc 2012) (other acts may be admitted in punitive phase to show pattern or practice and degree of reprehensibility)