Supreme Court of Missouri
en banc

IN RE: REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO MAI-CIVIL

MAI 23.07 VERDICT DIRECTING – MALICIOUS PROSECUTION – FOR
 INITIATING OR CONTINUING CRIMINAL OR CIVIL ACTIONS
(Instruction – Revision)
(Notes on Use – Revision)

MAI 23.13 VERDICT DIRECTING – RETALIATORY DISCHARGE OR
 DISCRIMINATION – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
(Instruction – New)
(Notes on Use – New)
(Committee Comment – New)


1.  Revisions and additions of previously approved MAI-CIVIL Instructions, Notes on Use, and Committee Comments as listed above, having been prepared by the Committee on Jury Instructions – Civil and reviewed by the Court, are hereby adopted and approved.

2.  The Instructions, Notes on Use, and Committee Comments revised as set forth in the specific exhibits attached hereto must be used on and after January 1, 2000, and may be used prior thereto; any such use shall not be presumed to be error.

3.  It is further ordered that this order and the specific exhibits attached hereto shall be published in the South Western Reporter and the Journal of The Missouri Bar.

Day – to – Day

________________________________
DUANE BENTON, Chief Justice


23.07 [2000 Revision] Verdict Directing – Malicious Prosecution - For Initiating or Continuing Criminal or Civil Actions


Your verdict must be for plaintiff if you believe:
First, defendant [“instigated”,  “continued”] 1 a judicial proceeding against
    plaintiff that terminated in favor of plaintiff, and
Second, in so doing defendant acted maliciously 2  and
            without reasonable grounds, 3 and
  Third, plaintiff was thereby damaged.
*[unless you believe that plaintiff is not entitled to recover by reason of Instruction Number ____ (here insert number of affirmative defense instruction)].


1.  Select the appropriate term.  See King v. Ryals, 981 S.W.2d 151
(Mo. App.1998).

2.  The term “maliciously” must be defined.  See definitions at MAI 16.01(1) and 16.02(2).  Sanders v. Daniel Intern. Corp., 682 S.W.2d 803 (Mo. banc 1984); and Proctor v. Stevens Employment Services, Inc., 712 S.W.2d 684 (Mo. banc 1986).

3.  The phrase “reasonable grouds” must be defined.  See definitions

at MAI 16.05 and 16.06.
* Add if affirmative defense is submitted.
MAI 23.13  [2000 New] Verdict Directing – Retaliatory Discharge or Discrimination – Workers’ Compensation


Your verdict must be for plaintiff if you believe:

First, plaintiff was employed by defendant, and

Second, plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation  claim 1, and

Third,  defendant discharged 2  plaintiff, and

Fourth, the exclusive cause of such discharge 2 was plaintiff’s filing of the
      workers’ compensation claim1 and
Fifth, as a direct result of such discharge2 plaintiff sustained damaged.


1.  Describe the right exercised by the plaintiff under the workers’ compensation law if it was other than filing a claim for compensation.

2.  If the claim is for discrimination rather than discharge, describe the act of discrimination, such as “reduced plaintiff’s rate of pay” or “demoted  plaintiff.”


This instruction is for use in a retaliatory discharge case under section 287.780, RSMo. See Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. banc 1998).  Section 287.780 also provides a cause of action to employees who are discriminated against by their employer, but not discharged, for exercising rights under the workers’ compensation law.  This instruction may be modified to submit acts of discrimination other than discharge where appropriate.