385 S.W.3d 445
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Jury verdict undervalued Norfolk’s damages relative to undisputed evidence of loss; Crown admitted damages exceed the verdict.
- The verdict form stated Norfolk’s total damages disregarding fault were $1,709,114.55; Crown and Norfolk disputed liability and some damages.
- Trial court applied Crown’s 24.4% fault to the verdict amount, entering judgment for Crown; Norfolk moved for additur or damages-only new trial and submitted juror affidavits.
- Juror affidavits asserted a higher total damages amount and that reductions for fault were not intended to be reapplied; the court rejected reliance on those affidavits.
- Norfolk also sought relief based on exclusion of Crown’s expert testimony and Crown’s regulatory arguments; the court denied those post-trial requests.
- Court remanded for a new damages-only trial consistent with uncontested record facts and Crown’s judicial admission of damages, while affirming other rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether damages-only new trial was required | Norfolk’s damages exceeded verdict; affidavits and admissions show gross inadequacy | Damages were properly limited by verdict and fault allocation | Remand for a new trial on damages only; verdict grossly inadequate |
| Effect of juror affidavits on the verdict | Affidavits show higher damages and intent not to apply fault twice | Verdict unambiguous; affidavits cannot create ambiguity | Affidavits not considered; no basis to amend judgment or grant additur based on them |
| Exclusion of expert testimony on 911 duty | 911-call testimony would aid negligence standard of care | Testimony on common knowledge unnecessary and prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; exclusion affirmed |
| Admissibility of 4 CSR 265-8.130 evidence and Crown’s proposed instructions | Regulation and related instructions supported liability standard | Regulation read to jury would confuse; lack of discovery disclosure | Court did not err in excluding regulation testimony and instructions; denied points |
| Crown’s post-trial requests and jury instructions on grade/duty | Proper instruction could reflect regulatory duty | No mandatory duty under the regulation; lack of evidence of danger | Trial court did not err; Crown's instructions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Smoot, 375 S.W.2d 209 (Mo.App.1964) (new-trial standards; damages discretion)
- Walton Constr. Co. v. MGM Masonry, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 799 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (juror affidavits limited use to explain, not contradict, verdict)
- Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 434 (Mo. Banc.1984) (affidavits cannot contradict unambiguous verdict)
- Lyon v. J.E. Dunn Constr. Co., 693 S.W.2d 169 (Mo.App. W.D.1985) (ambiguity required for affidavits to cure verdict)
- Kivland v. Columbia Orthopaedic Grp., LLP, 331 S.W.3d 299 (Mo.banc 2011) (de novo for admissibility of expert testimony, abuse of discretion for relevance)
- Adkins v. Hontz, 337 S.W.3d 711 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings; relevance)
- McCullough v. Commerce Bank, 349 S.W.3d 389 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (instruction refusals; MAI vs non-MAI scrutiny; prejudice showing)
- Seitz v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co., 959 S.W.2d 458 (Mo. Banc.1998) (jury instructions; sufficiency and form; MAI standards)