CSL argues the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial, after CSL refused additur, because the jury's award was supported by substantial evidence. CSL, relying on Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 148 (Mo.App.2009), argues that an appellate court reviews the circuit court's decision to order remittitur or additur for abuse of discretion “in the light most favorable to the verdict” and that a circuit court abuses its discretion when it sustains a motion for additur or remittitur where the jury verdict is supported by substantial evidence. However, this is not the proper standard of review in cases where a circuit court has sustained a motion for additur or, in the alternative, a new trial.
An abuse of discretion can occur when the trial court overturns a properly supported jury verdict. Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) ("when reviewing a trial court's grant of remittitur, an appellate court must first review whether the trial court had the statutory authority under § 537.068 to remit the jury's verdict"). "The doctrine of additur is a corollary of remittitur, and encompasses the same principles, therefore it may be analyzed in the same way."
Multifarious Points Relied On Before addressing Mother's claims on appeal, we are compelled to note that Mother's points relied on contain multifarious claims of error and, accordingly, violate Rule 84.04.Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 152 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (overruled in part on unrelated grounds in Badahman v. Catering St. Louis, 395 S.W.3d 29, 36–37 (Mo. banc 2013) ). “A point relied on should contain only one issue, and parties should not group multiple contentions about different issues together into one point relied on.” Rouse v. Cuvelier, 363 S.W.3d 406, 419 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (internal quotation omitted). “Despite this flagrant disregard of the rules, the policy of the appellate courts in this State is to decide a case on the merits rather than technical deficiencies in the brief.”
Multifarious Points Relied On Before addressing Mother's claims on appeal, we are compelled to note that Mother's points relied on contain multifarious claims of error and, accordingly, violate Rule 84.04.Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 152 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (overruled in part on unrelated grounds in Badahman v. Catering St. Louis, 395 S.W.3d 29, 36–37 (Mo. banc 2013)). “A point relied on should contain only one issue, and parties should not group multiple contentions about different issues together into one point relied on.” Rouse v. Cuvelier, 363 S.W.3d 406, 419 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (internal quotation omitted).
"The trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence," and "[w]e will affirm the trial court's decision absent a clear abuse of discretion." Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 152 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009) (quoting Campbell v. Tenet Healthsystem, DI, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 632, 638 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007)). "This standard gives the trial court 'broad leeway in choosing to admit evidence,' and its exercise of discretion will not be disturbed unless it 'is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration.'"
Also, "a jury is free to believe any, all, or none of a witness’s testimony," Mitchell v. Kardesch , 313 S.W.3d 667, 675 (Mo.banc 2010), and so may provide in full for contingencies supported by the evidence and not merely invented based on speculation. Indeed, "under Missouri case law, expert testimony is admissible where it addresses the probability, short of reasonable certainty , that future treatment may be necessary and of the potential cost of such treatment," Wiley v. Homfeld , 307 S.W.3d 145, 153 (Mo.App.W.D. 2009) (emphasis added) (citing Swartz , 215 S.W.3d at 131 ) (holding that where medical expert "could not testify with certainty how much treatment [plaintiff] would ultimately require," expert’s testimony was nevertheless admissible "describ[ing] the various forms of treatment that might be required and the costs associated therewith"), overruled on other grounds by Badahman v. Catering St. Louis , 395 S.W.3d 29, 40 (Mo.banc 2013), In Swartz, for example, our Supreme Court found that "testimony regarding [the plaintiff’s] increased risk of future harm was admissible.... information the jury should have in the difficult task of trying to give plaintiff’s condition a dollar value" where there was evidence "that her back injury carrie[d] with it at least a 25 percent chance, and perhaps a 50 percent chance, of requiring surgery in the future." 215 S.W.3d at 132-33.
This argument is nonsensical, and contrary to long-established principles of Missouri tort law. See Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 153 (Mo.App.W.D.2009) (“It is Missouri's well-settled rule that a plaintiff is entitled to full compensation for past or present injuries that the plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence were caused by the defendant.”). Since Plaintiff had the power to declare an emergency under the Declaration, it could repair both units and bill Defendant for the expenses.
The common law must apply to the MHRA “ ‘unless a statute clearly abrogates the common law either expressly or by necessary implication.’ ” Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (quoting Mika v. Cent. Bank of Kansas City, 112 S.W.3d 82, 90 (Mo.App. W.D.2003)). “[T]he Legislature is presumed to have acted with full awareness and complete knowledge of the present state of the law, including judicial and legislative precedent.” Rozelle v. Rozelle, 320 S.W.3d 225, 229 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (quotation omitted).
The common law must apply to the MHRA "`unless a statute clearly abrogates the common law either expressly or by necessary implication.'" Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (quoting Mika v. Cent. Bank of Kansas City, 112 S.W.3d 82, 90 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003)). "[T]he Legislature is presumed to have acted with full awareness and complete knowledge of the present state of the law, including judicial and legislative precedent."
The trial court is an expert on attorneys' fees, and we give it wide latitude in determining the appropriate amount to be awarded. Burden v. Burden, 811 S.W.2d 818, 822 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991). An abuse of discretion occurs only when the ruling "shocks the sense of justice, shows a lack of consideration, and is obviously against the logic of the circumstances." Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145, 161 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009). Here, the only claim that supported an attorneys' fee award was the computer tampering claim.