*1 ployees expeditious- provided for so shall be as re- provisions strued constitutional the ly employed and their fixed ac- salaries supra, quiring statutes, the rules, charter, cordance with and ordi- county trolling over ordinances applicable nances to the com- civil service gard appointment to the system; mission the merit and juvenile personnel fixing and in court present employees juvenile serving the compensation of all personnel of the of that court subject are to the merit and court. their accordance salaries shall fixed in therewith questions placed In estimates considering the here presented budget employees be in har- we should said shall also have mind the general mony with the salaries courts so fixed. have the “[t]he power inherent to incur authority does not held that relator Since have we paid all expenses order (rea are ju- authority have to fix salaries sonably) necessary holding for the of court it unneces- personnel deem venile court and the administration the duties of point sary respondent’s consider justice.” courts of ex Gentry State rel. the statutes involved are unconstitutional Becker, v. 769, 181, 351 Mo. 1, II, provides Art. violative of § 183. powers. separation for the respond- adjudged It is ordered We considered all of the hereby changing the ents are ousted from constitutional, statutory pro and charter exceptions noted here- (with the estimates visions heretofore mentioned and have Louis Coun- in) Court of St. Juvenile reached the following gen conclusions: ty budget, with- as contained in the annual eral, provisions of the Act Juvenile out the of said consent court. (Chap. 211) relate to state functions and are taxed this proceeding costs of applicable are County. St. Louis It is against respondents. obviously policy state of the as shown various sections Chapter as well All concur. as within the powers inherent employees that such reasonably as are nec
essary carry out its functions shall be
provided juvenile for the However, personnel think the provided for the juvenile
assistance ju court are
dicial officers within the meaning of Art.
VI,
18(e), but
employees
§
BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Carrie
county. Hasting
Jasper
v.
County, 314 Mo.
144,
partments) reasonably necessary En Banc. to properly carry on the functions of that Nov. 1967. court; placed amounts budget compensation of said court for the Rehearing Denied 1967. Dec. of said employees additional within the the applicable ordinances, limitation of
said changed estimates shall not be
budget County officer or the Council with court;
out the consent of said that the em- *2 Clayton, appel- Hirsch, R.
William lant. Louis,
George Adolf, St. A. spondent.
FINCH, Judge. result- injury action personal
Plaintiff’s $5,000. De- her favor for ed trial contained fendant’s motion for new but assignments numerous trial a new granted trial court single ground that “ * * * ‘direct’ before line second last word ‘result’ giving No. 6 left in Instruction did deviate from of MAI 4.01 is No. provisions of No. 6 error under the then stated: 6.” The court order No. to be Rule effect 70.01(c), allowed omission of said word “Said hav- determined. The jury to sums to award that, they trial. We ing done awarded a new sustained even damages she *3 The concur in that determination. deletion be sus- and would not were not sustained of of “re- the word “direct” as modifier a ‘direct result tained in the future as changes meaning the instruc- sult” of in the evi- mentioned of occurrence ” of an Damages tion. sustained as a result dence.’ damages, occurrence would include all such action, appealed From that directly indirectly. resulting whether or Appeals, which reversed St. Louis Court of Only kept “direct” in the is and remanded directions to reinstate with instruction is the told that judgment plain- in favor verdict and which it be award must the direct application, ordered the case tiff. On The word occurrence. it as transferred. We now decide limiting “direct” adds a factor not other- appeal this original an were wise included. 6 Instruction No. was follows: court, by adoption its This you “If find the issues in favor of Instructions, promul Approved Missouri Brown, you plaintiff, Carrie must gated These precise approved instructions. you award the be- sum research and had been drafted after much compensate fairly justly and lieve great effort on the of the court’s Brown, any plaintiff, Carrie for special reporter, the committee and its able and damages you she sustained believe pre A Divilbiss. late Professor S. John reasonably is certain to sustain sug and liminary draft was distributed men- future as a result of occurrence and gestions from the bench were received in tioned the evidence.” system adoption. bar final The system of devised to eliminate the old
Instruction No. 6 MAI conformed to complex, frequently argumen detailed and respects 4.01 in all than the omission great dif tative which caused instructions immediately preceding word judges, and ficulty jurors, lawyers and “result.” high percentage in of reversals resulted Supreme pro- Court Rule V.A.M.R. re given or on account vides, part, in as follows: carefully special The committee fused. in precise use each considered words to “(b) Approved Whenever Missouri In- provide order applica- structions contains an instruction simple, instruc concise and understandable particular ap- ble in a case which the be the format tions. Directions as to propriate party requests the court de- or given followed were to cover those submit, sires to such instruction shall be pro is stances where no MAI instruction given any exclusion of other on require vided where the facts a case subject. the same of an MAI instruction. When modification “(c) giving The of an instruction applicable, an MAI instruction is its use provisions violation of the this rule mandatory. shall ef- constitute its fect to be determined.” grant urges Plaintiff new omission of the word “direct” in mandatory highly It technical under Rule 70.- 01(b) given govern that MAI 4.01 be form over substance. this makes however, recognized, It that a without modification. Since Instruction must 258
system MAI down MAI 17.15 was mod- instruction such as this inherently by substituting danger” If ified “imminent standardized and inflexible. work, danger.” this court is to make “immediate substitution this existence, preserve very to be harmless integrity and terms mandatory we must “immi- insist directions the basis that pattern followed instruc nent” “immediate” same mean- have the Otherwise, ing. per- tions used as written. Such substitution quoted special report expressed. committee’s missible under the herein views opinions Motsinger Queen our difficult to visualize what would City Co., Mo., happen policy ap- adopt Casket if we should S.W.2d Norton, proving synonyms Mo., Hunter v. S.W. substitution of * * example, 2d 166: instructions. For Webster’s *4 permitted “improve” Dictionary Third to the in International lists “con- sequence,” “effect,” structions, even within the of and “outcome” confines specific synonyms precedents, synonyms the in “result.” the value of these of 4.01, will be “im would structions lost. Each we such were substituted MAI provement” by prompt being one will the in some cases have told “improvement” op an offsetting the “direct by damages his are assess which ponent and a the and in other after while court will result” of the occurrence be original not able which damages the with a being find cases told to assess ” divining consequence,” “direct rod.’ are either “direct the outcome,” the occur- effect” of or “direct spite the in MAI and of the directions contends, we should If, rence. special committee sub- comments of the approve elimination of mitting report, fre- its we have observed herein, quent “improvements” in deviations the to assess would direct given reaching the cases “result,” the they to be either found Norton, appellate courts. In Hunter v. “outcome,” of “effect” “consequence,” supra, in- example, plaintiff gave an con- would Such variations occurrence. MAI struction which was a modification of if 70.01(c), but stitute under Rule error 17.02. Plaintiff substituted nonprejudicial basis held to on portion “allowed car was she convey the synonyms and are words driving extend the left or over onto potential of the number meaning, same Highway northbound traffic of said lane in all MAI instructions variations wrong 61” for “drove on the side synonyms only the number be limited language road.” It contended available. the facts and used was in with accordance preju- have defendant could not been the effect of Other illustrations diced This court the modification. man- compliance with failure to insist on prejudicially readily MAI datory directions for addi- objectionable erroneous. submission prohibits MAI 1.02 apparent. reasons, tional alone but this variation recovery or multiple dual or theories also See require sufficient reversal. conjunctive. Under defense in Co., supra, Motsinger Queen City Casket can many instruction, cases system old for another elimination instance of error it was not held that be found which instruc- MAI in an substitution of words conjunctive, even instruct tion. support one such evidence to there was no This recovery or defense. theory of Mo. Thompson, In the of Foote v. view that based on clusion was by the App., decided imposed an additional simply conjunctive Appeals City Court of Kansas in- submitting that party on the burden handed Hunter cases were Motsinger and over If, improvement found it to be a distinct error. harmless struction and was desire system instructions and relying on the old philosophy based on confidence in- cases, not continuation. We this court should old those utilize lawyers and the can will MAI 1.02 compliance on with sist at written intended. We have theories that submission of should hold subject because length some although conjunctive, recovery bar, that, feel fairness to bench part MAI prejudicial, that “To crystal make it should meaningless immediately would become accomplish the for which mandatory direc- rather than suggestion must prepared, the courts forms were tive. they Motsinger v. sist that utilized.” City Co., supra, 408 S.W.2d Queen Casket in con- illustration is found Still another l. c. 860. MAI instructions. nection with converse entitled to 29.01 states that a defendant is verdict-directing Accordingly,
a converse of there is devia where instruction, following and “Notes Use” applicable MAI instruction tion from an that “de- 29.03 and 29.04 state need modification under which does not may give only fendant one converse case, particular facts in the each directing instruction.” it made presumed unless *5 Land, Murphy Mo., v. perfectly by proponent of the 505, concurrently herewith handed down re prejudice could have struction that no by 1, presents in Division No. a case sulted from such deviation. multiple which converse instructions were given. It was that claimed therein in established Plaintiff has not so any, No. was harmless. Division says there no that was this case. She 1 multiple in- holds that converse any occurrence which evidence of points structions were erroneous produced injuries and dam might have give only to one direction of, ages complained jury verdict-directing verse for is a instruction anything but direct could not have found mandatory a be en- direction and must defendant, by disputed damages. This is forced. The aim and but, argu dispute, regardless of the if, not be served in violation of these instruction ment does establish that the specific directions, multiple in- converse prejudicially erroneous. Our given, structions and this court prejudicial it error to has been that is made to search record and some damages injuries jury instruct a on way jury ascertain whether In Pender of which there evidence. is no thereby was plaintiff preju- affected and 656, Foeste, Mo., 329 was v. S.W.2d diced. erroneous to au prejudicially held to be per damages for thorize assessment of plaintiff argues Counsel for that affirm- only when, fact, the injuries manent ance herein means that this would court no that there were medical evidence was an prejudicially hold erroneous permanent injuries. Here, No. Instruction misspelled misplaced punctua- words or as a result of the deletion of tion. This does not follow. See Johnson “direct,” damages, both all would include West, Mo., 416 an S.W.2d 162. Such fact, if it be The direct indirect. however, comparable, instance is not fact, indirect that there was no evidence of editing substituting, by an instruction absence of comparable to the adding deleting phrases. words or proof injuries in Pender v. permanent Foeste, understanding supra. It It is error to instruct is our that the bench MAI, injuries there is no evidence. generally approve bar of which 260
Likewise, plaintiff’s overrule trial granting action of the court a new the absence of trial is affirmed contention and the cause 6 is harmless “direct” in No. Instruction manded trial. Instruction in view of the fact that error except STORCKMAN, All concur J.r No. which verdict-direct who in separate concurs concur- instruction, find ing required the ring opinion filed. plaintiff damages as sustained negligence. direct result of defendant’s OPINION CONCURRING IN RESULT
effect, No. a conflict between Instruction 2 6 was created. and Instruction No. STORCKMAN, Judge. Norton, supra, See Hunter v. S.W.2d I concur in the result because a new held that the [10], l. c. 166 wherein it was by granted trial the trial court and MAI 7.02 his fact added appellate our courts more inclined 4.01) did not (MAI affirm grant by a new the trial plain excuse the failure on grant court than to trial where one new verdict-directing instruc tiff add to his ’ I by has been denied lower “Notes tion set out accept holding court that the trial held that following MAI Use” 7.01. prej- position a better discern inconsistency be this failure created an udicial error the record reason even 2 and tween Instructions “result”; omission of they must Instruction told the however, been determine I have not able to the sum deduct of $4500 my from paid party. had been another the con- examination the instructions in for the
text of the evidence. parties detect court did not Finally, de plaintiff claims that *6 given, omission when the instruction was complain estopped from fendant should be it mislead. likely ing the error basis that defendant’s failed opinion fault I find with the call the the attention of omission to beyond go appears the conference court and counsel at says the 70.01(c) S.Ct. Rule strictness. (a). Rule pursuant 70.01 arising an error effect of on the fact This contention is based departure of a from an instruc- first instruc defendant offered converse determined”, tion “be while which, things, among tion opinion “prejudicial states jury was told their verdict must per- presumed” will be unless it is made they did not believe defendant fectly prejudice have- that no could damage as a direct sustained resulted. occurrence, and then with and offered a con Ap- drew The laudable of Missouri changed language was in which proved verse us back not lead Instructions should their strict, told that unreasonable and sometimes you “if do not days must be for defendant practice absurd that existed damage.” believe that sustained pleading has been common-law opinion that this does not are of the We corrected Statute Jeofails provide a basis excuse the error (§ for us to criminal law RSMo apply estoppel present instruction or rules 24.11) S.Ct. Rule defendant, against practice contention procedure in the civil is overruled. field.