Court Opinion

ID: 9685018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:21:19.053519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:01.873212
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in Part I of the principal opinion and substantially concur in Part II.
It should be open to litigants to demonstrate legal error in MAI, but MAI 14.06 is faithful to the legislative command' of § 304.351.5, RSMo 1978. It would be error to add words that the legislature did not put there.
Taylor v. Schneider, 370 S.W.2d 725 (Mo.App.1963) and Cope v. Thompson, 534 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.App.1976), appear to me to be correct on their facts. Neither case dealt with the wording of MAI 14.06. Any volunteered statements in those cases about § 304.351.5 or MAI 14.06 constitute unau-thoritative dicta, which of course should not be followed.