Root ex rel. Root v. Mudd

8 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. Three Rivers Elec. Corp.

    26 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. 2000)   Cited 206 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Lopez v. Three Rivers Electric Cooperative, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151, 158–59 (Mo. banc 2000) and Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651, 656 (Mo.App.1999), the circuit court instructed the jury as to the incorrect standard of care for one of the parties, and this incorrect standard was argued to the jury.

    As a matter of law, therefore, Three Rivers' objection should have been sustained. Because it was error to submit the highest degree of care standard, the question then is whether Three Rivers was prejudiced by the submission of Instructions Number 8 and Number 14. Prejudice is ordinarily presumed when a jury instruction imposes upon a party a standard of care greater than that required by law.Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651, 656 (Mo.App. 1998). The presumption is rarely rebutted.

  2. Stonger ex Rel. Stonger v. Riggs

    85 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 19 times
    Holding a lawn mower being operated on a public roadway was a “motor vehicle” as that term is defined in section 304.012

    Indeed, our research revealed no Missouri case on point. Derrick cites Root by and through Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651 (Mo.App.W.D. 1998) in arguing, by way of analogy, that because this court found the minor bicyclist therein owed the "highest degree of care" so, too, should a minor operating a lawn mower on a public street. We find Root distinguishable.

  3. Mantia v. Mo. Dep't of Transp.

    529 S.W.3d 804 (Mo. 2017)   Cited 37 times
    Reversing an award of benefits because claimant failed "to present evidence the actual work events comprising the ‘same or similar conditions’ would have caused extraordinary and unusual stress to a reasonable highway worker"

    Our cases apply this same standard in judging the standard of care for children as compared to other similarly situated children. See, e.g.,Lester v. Sayles, 850 S.W.2d 858, 867 (Mo. banc 1993) (finding the standard of care in crossing street is determined "in relation to the expectations held for other children in the same or similar circumstances"); Root By & Through Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651, 654 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (finding child bicyclist would be judged by "the care that a ‘very careful child’ of ‘the same age, capacity and experience’ would use under the same or similar circumstances"). The requirement that the jury find how a person would act—"under the same or similar circumstances"—is of key importance in Employee's case, where the statute requires the Commission to determine objectively whether Employee's stress was "extraordinary and unusual."

  4. Sasnett v. Jons

    400 S.W.3d 429 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 22 times
    Affirming trial court's denial of motion for costs

    That the jury was clearly advised as to the correct standards of care for both parties distinguishes this case from those relied upon by the Sasnetts. In Lopez v. Three Rivers Electric Cooperative, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151, 158–59 (Mo. banc 2000) and Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651, 656 (Mo.App.1999), the circuit court instructed the jury as to the incorrect standard of care for one of the parties, and this incorrect standard was argued to the jury. In Bean v. Superior Bowen Asphalt Co., 340 S.W.3d 275, 279–80 (Mo.App.2011), the two verdict directors, both proper under MAI, were in such conflict that the jury wrote a note to the judge expressing confusion over which one to follow.

  5. Sasnett v. Jons

    WD75106 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2013)

    That the jury was clearly advised as to the correct standards of care for both parties distinguishes this case from those relied upon by the Sasnetts. In Lopez v. Three Rivers Electric Cooperative, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151, 158-59 (Mo. banc 2000) and Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651, 656 (Mo. App. 1999), the circuit court instructed the jury as to the incorrect standard of care for one of the parties, and this incorrect standard was argued to the jury. In Bean v. Superior Bowen Asphalt Co., 340 S.W.3d 275, 279-80 (Mo. App. 2011), the two verdict directors, both proper under MAI, were in such conflict that the jury wrote a note to the judge expressing confusion over which one to follow.

  6. Abbott v. Energy

    375 S.W.3d 104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    Where a jury instruction imposes upon a party a standard of care higher than that required by law, prejudice is presumed. Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651, 656 (Mo.App.1998). The presumption is rarely rebutted.

  7. Abbott v. Missouri Gas Energy

    WD74239 (Mo. Ct. App. Jun. 12, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Where a jury instruction imposes upon a party a standard of care higher than that required by law, prejudice is presumed. Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651, 656 (Mo. App. 1998). The presumption is rarely rebutted.

  8. Syn, Inc. v. Beebe

    200 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that the nature of the inherently dangerous activity for which the independent contractor was hired must be tied to the resulting damage, and that MAI 31.15 "provides a series of findings with the requisite legal connections to [properly] hold a[n] [employer] responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor"

    Where a jury instruction imposes upon a party a standard of care higher than that required by law, prejudice is presumed. Root v. Mudd, 981 S.W.2d 651, 656 (Mo.App. 1998). The presumption is rarely rebutted.