![]() ![]() “Only evidence that tends to support the submission should be considered.” Id. “Any adverse evidence and inferences are disregarded.” Id. “In determining whether a claim is submissible, this Court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.” Rhoden v. “Whether the plaintiff made a submissible case is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.” Id. “Substantial evidence is evidence that ‘has probative force upon the issues, and from which the trier of fact can reasonably decide the case.’” Id. “A case is submissible when each element essential to liability is supported by legal and substantial evidence.” Id. ![]() 2 Standard of Review “This Court must determine whether the plaintiff presented a submissible case by offering evidence to support every element necessary for liability.” Brock v. ” Third Person exception is not at issue because Harner submitted his negligence claim to the jury only under the Known Third Person exception. Point I In Point I, Mercy asserts the trial court erred in denying Mercy’s motion for JNOV because Harner presented “insufficient evidence Mercy knew or had reason to know that was violent or posed a danger to. Mercy moved for JNOV, and alternatively, a new trial, which the trial court denied after Mercy and Harner submitted briefing and the trial court heard argument. On July 27, 2021, the trial court entered Judgment in accord with the jury verdict. On July 23, 2021, the jury returned a verdict for Harner and awarded damages of $2,000,000, which the trial court reduced to $1,500,000 based on the jury assessing Harner 25% of the fault. Mercy moved for directed verdict at the close of Harner’s case and at the close of all of the evidence, and the trial court denied both motions. The case was tried to a jury over five days beginning July 19, 2021. Mercy moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty to protect Harner from the criminal acts of a third party. Procedural History Harner sued Mercy in negligence relating to injuries Harner sustained in December 2015 when he was shot by Kaylea Liska (“Liska”) in Mercy’s parking lot while visiting his daughter at Mercy’s Emergency Department. Because Harner made a submissible case on his negligence claim under the Known Third Person exception and no instructional error occurred, the judgment is affirmed. The parties do not dispute that the Unknown 1 1 the verdict director for Harner’s negligence claim, because Instruction 8 misstated the law and held Mercy to a higher standard of care than required by law. ![]() 1 In Points II and III, Mercy asserts the trial court erred in submitting Instruction 8, The parties refer to the two exceptions as the Known Third Person exception and the Unknown Third Person exception, and this opinion will do the same for ease of reference. In Point I, Mercy asserts the trial court erred in denying Mercy’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) because Harner failed to make a submissible case on his negligence claim under the Known Third Person exception. SD37266 Filed: MaAPPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY Honorable John LePage AFFIRMED Mercy Hospital Joplin (“Mercy”) appeals the trial court’s judgment after a jury verdict for Steven Harner (“Harner”) on Harner’s single claim of negligence alleging Mercy breached its duty to protect him from the criminal acts of a third person on Mercy property. MERCY HOSPITAL JOPLIN, Defendant-Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District In Division STEVEN HARNER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |