338 S.W.3d 350
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Lampe sued Taylor and the City after a 2001 Portland-Grant intersection crash where Taylor ran a red light and Lampe was injured.
- Plaintiff alleged the City failed to conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and failed to trim vegetation near a signal ahead sign.
- Evidence showed two Grant-side signals for westbound Portland drivers were not continuously visible for 270 feet due to obstructions.
- The City installed a “signal ahead” sign because of the visibility deficiency, and evidence conflicted on whether this complied with the Manual.
- Dr. Glennon testified the signage and visibility failed the Manual’s requirements and caused or contributed to the collision; the City’s expert Dancey disputed some conclusions.
- Jury apportioned 85% fault to Taylor and 15% to the City; trial court entered judgment jointly and severally against both defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there substantial evidence of a dangerous condition and causation? | Lampe | Taylor/City | Yes; substantial evidence supported dangerous condition and causation. |
| Did the City’s sign placement satisfy the Manual's 270-foot visibility requirement? | Lampe | City | Disputed; jury reasonably credited Lampe’s expert over City experts; issue for the jury. |
| Was exclusion of collateral-source evidence proper to limit damages? | Lampe | City | Yes; exclusion complied with § 490.715 pre-amendment rules; no windfall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clevenger v. Oliver Ins. Agency, Inc., 237 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. banc 2007) (standard for denial of JNOV same as directed verdict; evidence must support all elements)
- Maune ex rel. Maune v. City of Rolla, 203 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. App. 2006) (proving § 537.600 elements; causation and foreseeability)
- Kraus v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 147 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. App. 2004) (apportionment of fault when public entity and private driver both negligent)
- United Missouri Bank v. City of Grandview, 105 S.W.3d 890 (Mo. App. 2003) (concurrent negligence does not bar recovery against public entity)
- Williams v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Comm'n, 16 S.W.3d 605 (Mo. App. 2000) (causation and fault considerations in public-tacit scenarios)
- Huifang v. City of Kansas City, 229 S.W.3d 68 (Mo. App. 2007) (concurrent negligence does not bar recovery; apportionment proper)
- Fox v. City of St. Louis, 823 S.W.2d 22 (Mo. App. 1991) (dangerous-condition concept under § 537.600)
- Farmer-Cummings v. Personnel Pool of Platte County, 110 S.W.3d 818 (Mo. banc 2003) (collateral source rule discussion in context of civil litigation)