Opinion ID: 2355918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the Court's Verdict Directing Jury Instruction Correct?

Text: The commission objected to Jury Instruction Number 7, the verdict director, which was submitted by Cain. MAI 31.17 is the proper instruction in any case based on section 537.600.1(2). MAI 31.17 reads as follows: Your verdict must be for plaintiff if you believe First, (here describe condition that made the public entity's property dangerous, such as there was oil on the gymnasium floor or the table saw was unguarded), and as a result the defendant's (describe property, such as gymnasium floor or table saw) was not reasonably safe, and Second, such condition was created by an employee of (name of public entity) within the scope and course of employment, and Third, the employee was thereby negligent, and Fourth, as a direct result of such negligence, plaintiff sustained damage. The commission objected to paragraph First that was submitted by the plaintiff and given to the jury: First, the tree was being cut down without training the tree cutters or supervising them or using ropes to control the direction of the fall or clearing the drop zone, and, as a result, the Defendant's cutting down of the tree was not reasonably safe, and . . .  The remaining three paragraphs of the trial court's instruction correctly track the Second, Third and Fourth paragraphs of MAI 31.17. The commission properly objected to paragraph First of plaintiff's verdict director because it was an improper modification of MAI 31.17. Paragraph First of MAI 31.17 requires that the instruction describe a dangerous condition that made the public entity's property not reasonably safe. This requirement follows section 537.600.1(2), the sovereign immunity statute, which, as discussed above, requires the submission of a dangerous condition of the public entity's property. Section 537.600.1(2) would allow a jury to find that the tree, after the notch cuts and back cuts were made, was state property in dangerous condition. See Alexander, 756 S.W.2d at 541-542. The instruction given, Instruction No. 7, did not submit to the jury the question of whether there was a dangerous condition. Instead the instruction submitted to the jury four acts that may have led to the conclusion that the defendant's cutting down the tree was not reasonably safe. Since the given instruction did not properly follow the approved MAI instruction, it is presumed prejudicial unless the proponent of the instruction proves that no prejudice could have occurred. Murphy v. Land, 420 S.W.2d 505, 507 (Mo.1967). Cain has failed to prove that the instruction was not prejudicial as the instruction did not require the jury to find one of the required elements of section 537.600.1(2).