Sasnett ex rel. Sasnett v. Jons, 400 S.W.3d 429

The Sasnetts sued the City of Kansas City and Tina Jons for wrongful death after a collision at the 18th Street and Charlotte intersection, where Jons ran a red light and collided with another vehicle, killing Sasnett.
Brooks settled with the Sasnetts for $250,000 before trial; that settlement was partly allocated to case expenses.
Evidence showed the intersection had a history of accidents; experts noted visibility problems and non-synchronized signals, and the City had identified the location as high-risk years earlier.
Jons testified she did not see the signals due to signal placement and that she could not brake effectively; eyewitness and reconstruction data suggested higher speeds for both drivers.
The court granted directed verdict against Jons, but the jury was asked to apportion fault between Jons and the City, with Jons’s liability framed as a percentage of fault.
The jury found Jons 10% at fault and the City 90% at fault, awarding the Sasnetts $2 million in damages, offset by the Brooks settlement and capped City liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by not instructing Jons owed a higher standard	Sasnetts argue Jons’s duty was higher than the City’s.	City contends instruction should reflect higher standard for Jons.	No reversible error; no preservation; plain error not shown
Admission of Jons's testimony about family and probation	Evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial to Jons; affected damages.	Testimony was limited, probative on cross-examination, and not outcome-determinative.	No manifest injustice; points denied
Admission of Jons’s statement about Sasnetts wanting her to go to jail	Prejudicial and improper echo of sympathy causing bias.	Cross-examination context; not reversible error.	No manifest injustice; points denied
denial of costs against Sasnetts	Prevailing party entitled to costs; Brooks settlement should not bar further recovery.	Brooks settlement covered many costs; offset and lack of itemization justified denial.	No abuse of discretion; costs denied

Lopez v. Three Rivers Electric Cooperative, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. banc. 2000) (illustrates improper standard instruction)
Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651 (Mo. App. 1999) (jury instruction clarity matters)
Bean v. Superior Bowen Asphalt Co., 340 S.W.3d 275 (Mo. App. 2011) (conflicting MAI directions can confuse jury)
Hensley v. Jackson Cnty., 227 S.W.3d 491 (Mo. banc. 2007) (plain error standard requires manifest injustice)
Atkinson v. Corson, 289 S.W.3d 269 (Mo. App. 2009) (plain error review rarely applied in civil cases)
Brown v. Poetz, 201 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. App. 2006) (admissibility of family-status evidence and its effect on merits)
Powell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 173 S.W.3d 685 (Mo. App. 2005) (witness statements reflecting beliefs are not substantial evidence)
Boshears v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 272 S.W.3d 215 (Mo. App. 2008) (arguments regarding argument timing and fairness)
Flood ex rel. Oakley v. Holzwarth, 182 S.W.3d 673 (Mo. App. 2005) (courts may consider waived objections in some contexts)