Rider ex rel. Rider v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Greater Kansas City
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 10
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Rider, a six-year-old, was injured at a YMCA after-school daycare in Kansas in 2003.
- YMCA directed children to play outside on melting snow/ice, then inside to a tile floor with no floor mats.
- Rider slipped on the cafeteria tile while crossing after washing hands; his clothes were wet after the fall.
- YMCA staff testified no water was seen on the floor; some witnesses said there was no plainly visible wet condition.
- Rider’s medical history includes congenital pseudoarthrosis leading to multiple surgeries, osteopenia, amputation, and long-term impairment.
- Trial court applied Kansas law for premises-liability aspects and Missouri MAI for negligence; Missouri law governed right of recovery for two Missouri residents; Rider elected to submit only negligence theory; jury awarded $5,906,525 with 90% fault to Rider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the careful-lookout instruction was properly submitted | Rider: no substantial evidence of plainly visible wet floor; instruction improper | YMCA: evidence supports lookout fault | Instruction improper; prejudicial reduction of damages reversed |
| Whether the jury’s comparative fault reduction was improperly based on an erroneous instruction | Rider: fault percentage cannot be applied due to lack of evidence | YMCA argued for fault based on lookout | Judgment modified to 100% fault on YMCA; full jury damages restored |
| Which state’s law governs right of recovery and damage caps | Missouri law should apply as residents; Kansas cap not applicable | Kansas law should apply for damages cap | Missouri law applied for right of recovery; cross-appeal denied as moot on cap due to lack of fault evidence |
| Whether the negligence verdict director submitted was proper under Missouri/Kansas distinctions | Nagaragadde-like affirmative acts supported negligence verdict | YMCA contends mismatch of law | No error; MAI instruction appropriate; plaintiff could elect negligence theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Price, 313 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. banc 2010) (no substantial evidence to support careful-lookout; modify judgment to full amount)
- Rudin v. Parkway Sch. Dist., 30 S.W.3d 838 (Mo.App.E.D.2000) (comparative fault principles apply when evidence supports fault subcategories)
- Nagaragadde v. Pandurangi, 216 S.W.3d 241 (Mo.App.W.D.2007) (affirmative acts of negligence; proper to submit negligence verdict director)
- Shaffer v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 903 S.W.2d 600 (Mo.App.S.D.1995) (remand for new trial when multiple disjunctive theories; inapplicable here)
- Kenney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 100 S.W.3d 809 (Mo.banc 2003) (remand for missing element on remedy where theory not properly submitted)
- Thomas v. First Nat’l Bank of Richmond, 561 S.W.2d 719 (Mo.App.1978) (duty to look and plainly visible conditions; cited for standard)