Opinion ID: 6216486
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Husband’s Loss of Consortium Claim

Text: The Allens last argue the circuit court erred in overruling its motion for new trial because the jury’s adverse determination that Allen’s husband sustained no damages 15 In its appellate brief, the City cites extensively to Ford v. Cedar County, 216 S.W.3d 167, 168 (Mo. App. 2006), to support its position that the legal owner of a property still must possess exclusive possession and control over the property to trigger the waiver of sovereign immunity under section 537.600. In Ford, the plaintiff sued Cedar County following an accident on County Road 1415 in Cedar County. Id. at 168-69. It is unclear from the court of appeals opinion whether the County actually owned the road in question. Id. The court of appeals affirmed a circuit court’s grant of summary judgment for Cedar County, finding it lacked “exclusive possession and control” over the road. Id. at 171-72. To the extent the court of appeals decision held a public entity legally owning property containing a dangerous condition would be entitled to summary judgment on the basis of sovereign immunity because the property was not a “public entity’s property” as contemplated under section 537.600, that case and reasoning should no longer be followed. A plaintiff need not demonstrate the public entity possesses “exclusive possession and control” of the property to satisfy the “public entity’s property” element of section 537.600 if the public entity is the legal owner of the property. See supra Part I.b.” 22 pursuant to his loss of consortium claim was erroneous. This opinion declines to reach the merits of this claim, as the Allens failed to include it in their motion for new trial and, as such, it was not preserved. See Rule 78.07(a); see also State v. Walter, 479 S.W.3d 118, 123 (Mo. banc 2016) (“Including a claim of error in a motion for new trial is a requirement of preserving an issue for review[.]”). This final point is denied.