If titling played no role, Vogt lacks but-for causation. See Wickham v. Hummel, 659 S.W.3d 345, 358-59 (Mo.Ct.App. 2022) (“The usual test for a causal connection between a defendant's negligence and a plaintiff's injury is whether the facts in evidence show that the injury would not have been sustained but for the negligence.” (quoting Delisi v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp., Inc., 701 S.W.2d 170, 175 (Mo.Ct.App. 1985))).
It is neither our role, nor the trial court’s, to weigh evidence, determine witness credibility, or resolve conflicting testimony.Wickham v. Hummel, 659 S.W.3d 345, 356 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022); see Harrison v. Harris-Stowe State Univ., 626 S.W.3d 843, 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ("[T]he jury alone, as the trier of fact, is the sole arbiter of witness credibility."). Rather, our review is limited to determining whether the plaintiff made a submissible case by supporting each essential element with substantial evidence.
Owenv.Washington Univ., 652 S.W.3d 349, 354 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022); Wickham v. Hummel, 659 S.W.3d 345, 368 n.15 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022).
It is neither our role, nor the trial court's, to weigh evidence, determine witness credibility, or resolve conflicting testimony.Wickham v. Hummel, 659 S.W.3d 345, 356 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022); see Harrison v. Harris-Stowe State Univ., 626 S.W.3d 843, 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) ("[T]he jury alone, as the trier of fact, is the sole arbiter of witness credibility.").
The trial court was bound to instruct the jury using MAI 38.08 and "it is not an error for the trial court to offer an MAI instruction that is directly applicable." Wickham v. Hummel, 659 S.W.3d 345, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022). [17] "[T]here is a plethora of law which states that instructions should not be unnecessarily modified and trial courts should utilize MAI whenever possible."
The trial court was bound to instruct the jury using MAI 38.08 and "it is not an error for the trial court to offer an MAI instruction that is directly applicable." Wickham v. Hummel, 659 S.W.3d 345, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022).
Missouri law also generally requires "expert testimony regarding the appropriate standard of care." Wickham v. Hummel , 659 S.W.3d 345, 356 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022).