TABLE OF INSTRUCTIONS

MAI 21.07    DERIVATIVE CLAIMS – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, LOSS OF SERVICES
        OR MEDICAL EXPENSES
            (Instruction – Revision)

MAI 24.02    VERDICT DIRECTING – LOCOMOTIVE INSPECTION ACT VIOLATION
            (Committee Comment – Revision)

MAI 24.03    VERDICT DIRECTING – SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT VIOLATION
            (Committee Comment – Revision)

MAI 31.16    WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY – DANGEROUS CONDITION OF
        PUBLIC ENTITY’S PROPERTY – ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
            (Notes on Use – Revision)

MAI 31.17    WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY – DANGEROUS CONDITION OF
        PUBLIC ENTITY’S PROPERTY CREATED BY EMPLOYEE
            (Notes on Use – Revision)

MAI 32.10    BATTERY ACTIONS – RESISTING INVASION OF PROPERTY
            (Committee Comment – Revision)

MAI 32.13    FALSE IMPRISONMENT – SHOPLIFTING
            (Committee Comment – Revision)



1.  Revisions 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 July 1, 2016, 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
 
____________________________
PATRICIA BRECKENRIDGE
Chief Justice


21.07 [2016 Revision] Derivative Claims—Loss of Consortium, Loss of Services or
       Medical Expenses
 
 

H.  See Illustration 35.18 and Illustration 35.20.

24.02 [2016 Revision] Verdict Directing - Locomotive Inspection Act Violation

Committee Comment (2016 Revision)
(Approved November 17, 2015; Effective July 1, 2016)

C.  When a case presents issues of both statutory violations (under the Locomotive Inspection Act or the Safety Appliance Acts) and general negligence, see MAI Illustration 35.15 for a sample verdict form that combines both a strict liability claim and a negligence claim. See Host v. BNSF Ry. Co., 460 S.W.3d 87 (Mo. App. 2015), where it was held to be error to submit multiple theories seeking to recover the same damages in two instruction packages employing two verdict forms.

 
24.03 [2016 Revision] Verdict Directing - Safety Appliance Act Violation


B.  When a case presents issues of both statutory violations (under the Locomotive Inspection Act or the Safety Appliance Acts) and general negligence, see MAI Illustration 35.15 for a sample verdict form that combines both a strict liability claim and a negligence claim. See Host v. BNSF Ry. Co., 460 S.W.3d 87 (Mo. App. 2015), where it was held to be error to submit multiple theories seeking to recover the same damages in two instruction packages employing two verdict forms.

31.16 [1995 Revision] Waiver of Sovereign Immunity-Dangerous Condition of Public
    Entity’s Property-Actual or Constructive Notice

Notes on Use (2016 Revision)

(Approved November 17, 2015; Effective July 1, 2016)

    2.    If there is a factual dispute about the ownership or control of the property, add: “First, defendant (identify the public entity) either owned or controlled the (describe the property, such as “sidewalk”, “manhole”, “drainage ditch”), and…”.  Then renumber the other paragraphs of the verdict directing instruction. See Walton v. City of Seneca, 420 S.W.3d 640 (Mo. App. 2013); Spielvogel v. City of Kansas City, 302 S.W.3d 108 (Mo. App. 2009); Thomas v. Clay County Election Board, 261 S.W.3d 574 (Mo. App. 2008). Compare, Randel v. City of Kansas City, 467 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. App. 2015).


    4.    If both phrases are used, they must be submitted in the disjunctive and each must be supported by the evidence.  Other submissions of negligence, such as “barricade it”, “remove it”, or another appropriate submission, may also be proper if supported by the facts of the case.
 
 
31.17 [1992 New] Waiver of Sovereign Immunity-Dangerous Condition of Public Entity’s Property Created by Employee

Notes on Use (2016 Revision)

(Approved November 17, 2015; Effective July 1, 2016)

    2.    If there is a factual dispute about the ownership or control of the property, add: “First, defendant (identify the public entity) either owned or controlled the (describe the property, such as “sidewalk”, “manhole”, “drainage ditch”), and…”.  Then renumber the other paragraphs of the verdict directing instruction. See Walton v. City of Seneca, 420 S.W.3d 640 (Mo. App. 2013); Spielvogel v. City of Kansas City, 302 S.W.3d 108 (Mo. App. 2009); Thomas v. Clay County Election Board, 261 S.W.3d 574 (Mo. App. 2008).  Compare, Randel v. City of Kansas City, 467 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. App. 2015).

    3.    Delete the phrase “within the scope and course of employment” if not an issue. If an issue, the phrase must be defined. See Chapter 13.00 and particularly MAI 13.05, which will fit the facts of most cases.


32.10 [1969 New] Battery Actions—Resisting Invasion of Property



    F.  See Barkley v. McKeever Enterprises, 456 S.W.3d 829 (Mo. banc 2015), for a further discussion of the merchant's privilege as an available affirmative defense against a battery claim and for a discussion of reasonable force under § 537.125, RSMo.

32.13 [1978 Revision] False Imprisonment—Shoplifting

Committee Comment (2016 Revision)

(Approved November 17, 2015; Effective July 1, 2016)

    C.  See Barkley v. McKeever Enterprises, 456 S.W.3d 829 (Mo. banc 2015), for a further discussion of the merchant's privilege as an available affirmative defense against a battery claim and for a discussion of reasonable force under § 537.125, RSMo.
 
Day- to- Day
 
__________________________
Patricia Breckenridge
Chief Justice