330 S.W.3d 576
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Becky and Ronald Roberts sued Sokol, Sachs, and the Sachs firm for legal malpractice stemming from trial handling of their underlying personal injury action.
- The underlying case arose from a collision where Mrs. Roberts was a passenger; liability and damages were contested at trial; Mrs. Roberts’ treating physicians did not testify live.
- A jury found Nabors 100% liable and awarded Roberts $156,000; Farm Bureau offered a $96,927.64 settlement, which Plaintiffs accepted after consulting independent counsel.
- Plaintiffs later alleged multiple acts of malpractice, including failure to present medical and lay evidence, improper trial strategy, and improper jury instructions.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the issues were trial strategy/governmental errors and that settlement precluded damages; Plaintiffs contended genuine issues of material fact remained.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on all claims; on appeal, the court affirmed in part (as to the Nabors claim) and reversed/remanded as to Patterson/Shelter claims for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on trial-strategy/governmental-error defense | Roberts contend negligence is not defeated by trial strategy; material issues remain for jury. | Sokol and Sachs argue only trial strategy errors, which bar malpractice claims as a matter of law. | Point I meritorious; genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on trial-strategy defense. |
| Whether settlement of underlying case bars proximate-cause claim | Settlement does not automatically destroy causation; damages can still be shown. | Heartland controls; settlement bars damages because no final adjudication and no provable causation. | Point II meritorious in part; settlement may foreclose damages for Nabors but not necessarily entire claim; reversed and remanded for further proceedings on Patterson/Shelter claims. |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on all claims | Depositions show contradicting accounts; issues remain for trial. | Record demonstrates uncontroverted facts supporting judgment as a matter of law. | Point III moot due to disposition of Points I and II; but records showed genuine disputes as to underlying facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Novich v. Husch & Eppenberger, 24 S.W.3d 734 (Mo.App.2000) (establishes four elements of legal malpractice and de novo review on summary judgment)
- Patterson v. Warten, Fisher, Lee & Brown, L.L.C., 260 S.W.3d 417 (Mo.App.2008) (elements of legal malpractice; causation requires but-for connection)
- Thiel v. Miller, 164 S.W.3d 76 (Mo.App.2005) (negligence measured by reasonable skill and diligence)
- Zweifel v. Zenge and Smith, 778 S.W.2d 372 (Mo.App.1989) (expert testimony generally required; exceptions for clear and palpable cases)
- Heartland Stores, Inc. d/b/a Shop-N-Go, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co., 815 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.App.1991) (settlement can bar damages and requires showing settlement was necessary to mitigate damages)
- Collins v. Missouri Bar Plan, 157 S.W.3d 726 (Mo.App.2005) (damages and causation; settlements do not automatically preclude damages)
- Aluminum Prod. Enter., Inc. v. Fuhrmann Tooling & Mfg. Co., 758 S.W.2d 119 (Mo.App.1988) (damages must be proven with reasonable certainty)
- London v. Weitzman, 884 S.W.2d 674 (Mo.App.1994) (evidence required to prove causation in malpractice)