MISSOURI REFORMS
Appeal Bond Reform: HB 393 (2005). Limits the amount a defendant can be required to
pay to secure the right to appeal to $50 million.
Appeal Bond Reform: SB
242 (2003). Limits the amount that
signatories to the Master Settlement Agreement are required to pay to secure
the right to appeal to $50 million.
Class Action Reform: H.B. 1211 (2004). Provides for the
interlocutory appeal of class certifications.
Collateral Source Rule Reform: HB 393 (2005). Modifies the collateral source rule to allow the
actual amount of paid medical expenses to be introduced into evidence rather
than the amount billed.
Collateral Source Rule
Reform: HB 700 (1987). Permits the admissibility of evidence of collateral
source payments, but provided that a defendant who presents collateral source
payments as evidence waives his right to a credit against the judgment for that
amount.
Joint and Several Liability Reform: HB 393 (2005). Provides that joint and several liability
applies if a defendant is 51 percent or more at fault. In such circumstances, the defendant is
jointly and severally liable for the amount of the judgment rendered against
the defendant. If a defendant is found
to be less than 51 percent at fault, the defendant is only responsible for the percent
of the judgment he or she is responsible for.
Joint and Several
Liability Reform: HB 700 (1987). Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of all damages when a plaintiff is
assessed a portion of the fault.
Joint and Several
Liability Reform: Mo. Stat. § 537.067. Limits joint liability to
two times the defendant’s percentage of fault, if the plaintiff was at
fault.
Jury Service and Class Action Reform: H.B.
1211 (2004). Provides
for stricter criteria for jurors to be excused from service. Allows one automatic
postponement from service. Specifies a maximum fine of $500 for those who fail to appear for jury service. Provides for employee protections which
prohibits employers from requiring employees to use personal or sick leave for
time spent responding to a summons for jury duty. Provides for small business protections which
required a court to reschedule the service of a summoned juror if the juror
works for an employer with five or fewer employees and has another employee
already summoned during the same period.
Medical Liability Reform/Expressions of Sympathy: HB 393 (2005). Prohibits statements, writings, or benevolent gestures
expressing sympathy by medical providers from being admitted into evidence.
Medical Liability Reform/Noneconomic
Damages: HB 393 (2005). Limits noneconomic
damages in medical liability cases to $350,000 regardless of the number of
defendants in the case.
Medical Liability Reform/Statute of Limitations for
Minors: HB 393 (2005). Specifies that actions against
physicians and other health care providers for malpractice must be brought
within two years of a minor’s eighteenth birthday.
Medical Liability Reform/Volunteer Immunity: HB 393 (2005). Provides civil immunity from damages for physicians
who provide uncompensated medial care (volunteer services).
Medical Liability Reform: Noneconomic Damages
Reform: Mo. Stat. § 538.210. Limits noneconomic damages in medical liability cases
to $350,000, to be increased or decreased on an annual basis in accordance with
the Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditures. The $350,000 limit on noneconomic damages
recoverable from any one defendant in a health care liability action did not
violate equal protection clauses of the State or Federal Constitutions, or open
courts or right to remedy provisions of State Constitution. Adams
v. Children’s Mercy Hospital, 832 S.W.2d 898 (Mo.), cert.
denied, 506 U.S. 991
(1992).
Medical Liability
Reform: Periodic Payment of Future Damages: Mo. Stat. § 538.220. Allows a court to order
the periodic payment of future damages exceeding $100,000 in medical liability
cases.
Obesity Litigation Reform: H.B. 1115
(2004). Exempts from civil
liability manufacturers, packers, distributors, carriers, holders, sellers,
marketers, or advertisers of food (as defined in Title 21 U.S.C. Section 301
(F)) or an association of one or more such entities when the claim is for
weight gain, obesity, or a health condition associated with weight gain or
obesity. The liability exemption does
not apply if the claim is based on a material violation of a state or federal
adulteration or misbranding requirements.
The liability exemption also does not apply for any other material
violation of federal or state law
applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising,
labeling, or sale of food and the violation was committed knowingly and
willfully. The provisions of the bill do
not preclude civil liability for breach of express contract or express warranty
in connection with the purchase of food.
Finally, H.B. 1519 provides that discovery and all other proceedings
shall be stayed during a motion to dismiss.
Post Judgment Interest Reform: HB 393 (2005). Specifies that post-judgment interest is to be
calculated at an interest rate equal to the Federal Funds Rate plus five
percent.
Prejudgment Interest Reform: HB 393 (2005). Specifies that prejudgment interest is to be
calculated at an interest rate equal to the Federal Funds Rate plus three
percent.
Prejudgment Interest Reform: HB 700 (1987).
Permits the assessment of prejudgment
interest only in cases where the judgment exceeds a settlement offer.
Punitive Damages Reform: HB 393 (2005). Limits punitive damages to $500,000 or five times
the judgment, whichever is greater.
Limit does not apply to certain cases involving housing discrimination.
Punitive Damages
Reform: HB 700 (1987). Requires the
determination of awards for punitive damages to be made in a separate proceeding.
Permits the jury to set the amount for punitive
damages if, in the first stage, the jury finds a defendant liable for punitive
damages. Permits
the admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s net worth only during the
proceeding for the determination of punitive damages. Requires 50% of all punitive damages awards
to be paid to the state fund. Prohibits multiple punitive damages awards under certain
conditions.
Punitive Damages
Reform: Clear and Convincing Requirement: Rodriguez
v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 936 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. 1996). Requires a plaintiff to prove punitive damages by clear and
convincing evidence.
Venue Reform: HB 393 (2005). Establishes venue in the county where the plaintiff
was first injured by the wrongful
acts or negligent conduct alleged in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was
first injured in Missouri. Establishes
venue in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was first injured outside
Missouri: (a) For corporate defendants,
in any county where the registered agent is located or, if the plaintiff's
principal place of residence was in Missouri when the plaintiff was first
injured, in the county of the plaintiff's principal place of residence on the
date the plaintiff was first injured; and (b) for individual defendants, in any
county of the defendant's principal place of residence in Missouri or, if the
plaintiff's principal place of residence was in Missouri when the plaintiff was
first injured, in the county containing the plaintiff's principal place of
residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured. Specifies that in wrongful death actions the
plaintiff is considered first injured where
the decedent was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged
in the action. Specifies that in a
spouse's claim for loss of consortium the plaintiff
claiming consortium is considered first injured where the other spouse was
first injured by the wrongful act or negligent conduct alleged in the
action. Specifies that
the court must transfer venue to the county unanimously chosen by the parties if all parties agree in
writing to a change of venue. If
parties are added after the date of the transfer and they do not consent to the
transfer, the cause of action will
be transferred to a county in which venue is otherwise appropriate.