Wickham v. Hummel

7 Citing cases

  1. Lillian Louise Morgan Vogt v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

    4:22-cv-00385-SRC (E.D. Mo. Mar. 14, 2024)

    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))).

  2. Caldwell v. Unifirst Corp.

    694 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    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.

  3. Tesla, Inc. v. Assurance Tow & Recovery, LLC

    696 S.W.3d 438 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    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).

  4. Caldwell v. UniFirst Corp.

    No. ED111923 (Mo. Ct. App. May. 28, 2024)

    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.").

  5. Crisp v. Mo. Sch. for Deaf, Dep't of Elementary & Secondary Educ.

    681 S.W.3d 650 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 8 times

    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."

  6. Crisp v. Mo. Sch. for The Deaf

    No. WD85660 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    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).

  7. Denney v. Syberg's Westport, Inc.

    665 S.W.3d 348 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 8 times
    Noting a party fails to preserve a claim that the jury instruction gave a roving commission by failing to object on that basis during the instructions conference

    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).