Source: http://www.atra.org/state/missouri/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:26:05+00:00

Document:
Class Action Reform: H.B. 1211 (2004); § 512.020 R.S.Mo.
Venue Reform: HB 393 (2005); § 538.232 R.S.Mo.
Establishes venue in the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was first injured in Missouri. Established venue in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was first injured outside Missouri: (a) For corporate defendants, in any county where the registered agent is located or, if the plaintiff’s principal place of residence was in Missouri when the plaintiff was first injured, in the county of the plaintiff’s principal place of residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured; and (b) for individual defendants, in any county of the defendant’s principal place of residence in Missouri or, if the plaintiff’s principal place of residence was in Missouri when the plaintiff was first injured, in the county containing the plaintiff’s principal place of residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured. Specified that in wrongful death actions the plaintiff is considered first injured where the decedent was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in the action. Specified that in a spouse’s claim for loss of consortium the plaintiff claiming consortium is considered first injured where the other spouse was first injured by the wrongful act or negligent conduct alleged in the action. Specifies that the court must transfer venue to the county unanimously chosen by the parties if all parties agree in writing to a change of venue. If parties are added after the date of the transfer and they do not consent to the transfer, the cause of action will be transferred to a county in which venue is otherwise appropriate.
Joint and Several Liability Reform: H.B. 393 (2005); § 537.067 R.S.Mo.
Provides that joint and several liability applies if a defendant is 51 percent or more at fault. In such circumstances, the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the amount of the judgment rendered against the defendant. If a defendant is found to be less than 51 percent at fault, the defendant is only responsible for the percent of the judgment he or she is responsible for.
Joint and Several Liability Reform: HB 700 (1987).
Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of all damages when a plaintiff is assessed a portion of the fault.
Specified that post-judgment interest is to be calculated at an interest rate equal to the Federal Funds Rate plus five percent.
Prejudgment Interest Reform: H.B. 393 (2005); § 355.176 R.S.Mo.
Specifies that prejudgment interest is to be calculated at an interest rate equal to the Federal Funds Rate plus three percent.
Jury Service Reform: H.B. 1211 (2004); § 494.432 R.S.Mo.
Provides for stricter criteria for jurors to be excused from service. Allows one automatic postponement from service. Specifies a maximum fine of $500 for those who fail to appear for jury service. Provides for employee protections which prohibits employers from requiring employees to use personal or sick leave for time spent responding to a summons for jury duty. Provides for small business protections which required a court to reschedule the service of a summoned juror if the juror works for an employer with five or fewer employees and has another employee already summoned during the same period.
Increases the standards for admitting expert evidence by adopting the Daubert standard. Specifically, the legislation establishes that an expert witness may testify if: (1) the expert’s specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence; (2) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (3) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (4) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Provided civil immunity from damages for physicians who provide uncompensated medial care (volunteer services).
Replaces English common law causes of action for medical malpractice claims with statutory causes of action, and provides for limits on noneconomic damages for those statutory causes of action. Limits noneconomic damages to $400,000, and $700,000 in catastrophic cases. It also places a limit of $700,000 in wrongful death cases.
Medical Liability Reform: Noneconomic Damages: H.B. 393 (2005).
Limits noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to a nonadjustable limit of $350,000 regardless of the number of defendants in the case.
Held unconstitutional by Missouri Supreme Court in Watts ex rel. Watts v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctrs., 376 S.W.3d 633 (Mo.2012).
Collateral Source Rule Reform: H.B. 393 (2005); § 490.715. R.S.Mo.
Modifies the collateral source rule to allow the actual amount of paid medical expenses to be introduced into evidence rather than the amount billed.
Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 700 (1987).
Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral source payments, but provided that a defendant who presents collateral source payments as evidence waives his right to a credit against the judgment for that amount.
Government Retention of Personal Injury Lawyers- S.B. 59 (2011); Sections 34.376, 34.378, and 34.380.
Prohibits the state and any of its agents from entering into a contingency fee contract with a private attorney, unless the Attorney General makes specific written findings. The Attorgeny General is required to request written proposals from private attorneys, unless the Attorney General makes a written determination that requesting proposals is not feasible. If the Attorney General requests proposals from private attorneys, the Attorney General is requried to choose the lowest and best bid or request the office of adminstration establish an independent panel to evaluate the proposals and choose the lowest and best bid. A private attorney who is representing the state on a contingency fee basis is requried to maintain records about their expenses for at least four years after the contract terminates. The attorney general’s office is required to respond to requests to make these records available to the public under the sunshine law. The Attorney General is required to post certain information about the contingency fee arrangement on its website. The Attorney General also is required to submit an annual report regarding the use of contingency fee contracts.
Limits punitive damages to $500,000 or five times the judgment, whichever is greater. Limit does not apply to certain cases involving housing discrimination. The limit on punitive damages violated the jury trial provision of the State Constitution. Lewellen v. Chad Franklin and Chad Franklin National Auto Sales North, LLC, Case No. No. SC92871 (Mo.Sup.Ct., decided Sept. 9, 2014).
Missouri Supreme Court struck down this bill as unconstitutional as it applies to common law claims in the case of Lewellen v. Franklin (Sept. 9, 2014).
Punitive Damages Reform: Clear and Convincing Requirement: Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. 1996).
Requires a plaintiff to prove punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence.
Codifies existing law by providing that a real property occupant owes no duty of care to a trespasser except to refrain from harming the trespasser by an intentional, willful, or wanton act. Establishes that a possessor of land does not owe a duty of care to a trespasser, except for cases when the land possessor knows of the trespasser’s presence, maintains certain types of artificial conditions on the premise, or in certain instances involving child trespassers.
Exempted from civil liability manufacturers, packers, distributors, carriers, holders, sellers, marketers, or advertisers of food (as defined in Title 21 U.S.C. Section 301 (F)) or an association of one or more such entities when the claim is for weight gain, obesity, or a health condition associated with weight gain or obesity. The liability exemption does not apply if the claim is based on a material violation of a state or federal adulteration or misbranding requirement. The liability exemption also does not apply for any other material violation of federal or state law applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling, or sale of food and the violation was committed knowingly and willfully. The provisions of the bill do not preclude civil liability for breach of express contract or express warranty in connection with the purchase of food. Finally, H.B. 1519 provided that discovery and all other proceedings shall be stayed during a motion to dismiss.

References: § 512
 § 538
 § 537
 § 355
 § 494
 v. 
 § 490
 v. 
 v. 
 v.