trending ATTORNEYS on baker sterchi
{{item.T}}
Kansas City, Missouri
2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500, Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2533
Premises liability update: Missouri Supreme Court affirms ruling on adequacy of negligence jury instruction
We recently reported on a ruling of the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals that there was sufficient evidence to support the giving of the negligence instruction in a case where an employer was found liable for damages sustained when an employee was injured by a third party criminal act. The Missouri Supreme Court has now upheld that ruling. In Wieland v. Owner-Operator Services, Inc., Wieland was an employee of the Owner-Operator company when she alerted her employer that she felt threatened by an ex-boyfriend named Alan Lovelace. In response, the company undertook certain precautions, including disseminating a photograph of the ex-boyfriend to the reception area and informing the company’s safety team about the situation. Some two weeks later, Lovelace gained access to the employee parking lot and laid in wait in Wieland’s vehicle. After approximately an hour, Wieland and Lovelace had a confrontation and as Wieland walked away, Lovelace shot her in the back of the head. Wieland later sued the company.
At trial, the circuit court judge approved a jury instruction which allowed liability for the criminal acts of a third party in instances where the defendant knew or by using ordinary care could have known that the third party was on its premises and posed a danger. In doing so, the trial court invoked an exception to the general rule that there is no duty to protect against criminal acts of third parties. Missouri courts have essentially adopted the rule established by § 344, Comment F, of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. That rule provides that since the possessor is not an insurer of the visitor safety, he is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur. The rule underscores that once the specter of harm to an invitee becomes apparent, the general rule insulating a premises owner from liability no longer applies. The evidence introduced at trial was that Owner-Operator had surveillance cameras that would have shown Mr. Lovelace gaining access to both parking lot and Wieland’s vehicle. However, the surveillance cameras were not monitored at the time the incident occurred.
In its appeal, the company argued the circuit court erred in submitting the jury instruction that allowed for this finding because there was not substantial evidence to let this issue go to the jury. The Supreme Court ruled that while a challenge to this verdict director was abandoned on appeal and was therefore not properly before the Court, in any event, the Plaintiff’s argument, as adopted by the trial court, did not misstate the law.
related services
About Missouri Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Missouri Law Blog examines significant developments, trends and changes in Missouri law on a broad range of topics of interest to Missouri practitioners and attorneys and businesses with disputes subject to Missouri law. Learn more about the editor, David Eisenberg.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Missouri Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Missouri Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Missouri Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
