On July 2, 2010, a Clay County, Missouri returned a verdict of $2.487 Million for one of the firm’s clients in a complex wrongful death, personal injury and medical malpractice case. Rick Morefield, lead counsel and Pat Bottaro, second chair, handled the week long jury trial which involved two defendants and a number of novel legal issues.

One of the defendants had an epileptic seizure while driving his SUV.  The defendant drove over the back of the motorcycle ridden by the firm’s client and her husband.  The collision broke the client’s pelvis and lower leg and caused the death of her husband who was burned to death when the motorcycle became trapped under the SUV and caught fire. The widow retained Bottaro, Morefield, Kubin & Yocum, L.C. to file suit against the driver and against the driver’s doctor who was alleged to have negligently provided medical treatment to the driver.  It was alleged that the doctor never informed the driver that he might be at risk of having a seizure while driving and that the doctor never informed the driver that his alcohol consumption could dangerously alter the effectiveness of his epilepsy medicine.

The jury rendered its verdict for the widow and assessed 100% of the fault against the driver of the SUV.  The jury awarded the widow more than $1.3 million for the death of her husband and $1.1 million for her own personal injuries.  The case was unusual in that there are very few situations in which Missouri law permits anyone other than a patient to make a medical malpractice claim against a doctor.  Missouri law permits such a claim, however, when someone is injured because the doctor fails to warn a patient that it is not safe to drive either due to medical treatment that was provided or due to a patient’s lack of understanding about his medical condition.

This is believed to be the largest verdict in Clay County in 2010. Congratulations to Rick Morefield and Pat Bottaro on an outstanding result.

Rick Morefield obtained summary judgment on behalf of his client South Metro Fire Protection District in the case of Holmes  v. South Metro Fire Protection District  and Phillip Brillhart.  The Jackson County Circuit Court entered summary judgment on February 19, 2010, just a few days before trial was set to begin.  The plaintiff alleged she had been sexually abused by Phillip Brillhart, her uncle, from the time she was three years old until she was 17 years old.  Brillhart was hired by South Metro Fire Protection District when the plaintiff was approximately 12 years old and after the abuse had allegedly continued for approximately 9 years.  Brillhart allegedly continued to abuse the plaintiff after he went to work at South Metro Fire Protection District.  Plaintiff sued defendant Phillip Brillhart for the sexual abuse. He had previously pled guilty and served a prison sentence for the abuse. The plaintiff also sued South Metro Fire Protection District alleging that the fire district was negligent in hiring, retaining and supervising Brillhart and she alleged that her injuries were a result of the actions of South Metro.  Morefield represented only South Metro Fire Protection District in this case.  Brillhart was not represented by counsel.

Morefield successfully argued that South Metro Fire Protection District was not responsible for plaintiff’s sexual abuse, and it had no basis to believe the abuse was occurring.  Plaintiff testified that Brillhart abused her in a wide variety of situations including family gatherings.  Plaintiff’s expert admitted under cross examination that the abuse would have continued even if Brillhart had been fired by South Metro Fire Protection District.  The court ruled that plaintiff failed to establish that South Metro Fire Protection District was negligent or that its actions caused injury to plaintiff.  Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed with her claims against Brillhart, the actual abuser.

In Missouri, an employer can be liable for negligent hiring or negligent retention only if the plaintiff succeeds in showing that: (1) the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s dangerous proclivities and (2) the employer’s negligence in hiring or retaining the employee was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Moreland v. Farren-Davis, 995 S.W.2d 512, 517 (Mo. App. 1999); Butler v. Hurlbut, 826 S.W.2d 90, 92 (Mo. App. 1992).  Plaintiff failed to meet either of these requirements.

For further information about negligent hiring and retention issues in Missouri, contact Rick Morefield.

There appears to be a great deal of interest in lawsuits relating to the recent Salmonella outbreak involving tomatoes and other vegetables. However, there is not much known at this point to help evaluate whether there will be or should be significant personal injury litigation arising from this situation. As with any public health issue, a number of questions need to be asked.

Why did the Salmonella outbreak occur?

Did individuals or corporations do something careless that led to Salmonella infected tomatoes and produce?

Did individuals or corporations fail to do something they should have done to prevent Salmonella from infecting produce, such as tomatoes?

If individuals or corporations did something careless or failed to do something necessary to protect the public health, what was the reason for their conduct? (more…)

With the coming of Spring, it is possible that you or someone you know was hurt during the winter months when they slipped and fell on snow or ice in Kansas. The question now is whether the legal system provides any ability to recover money to help pay for medical bills, lost wages, and/or pain and suffering. If you have additional questions after reading this article, please contact our firm.
General Rule

In Kansas, any “occupier of land,” whether a private homeowner or a business is held to a standard of “reasonable care under all circumstances” to keep their property safe for everyone except trespassers. A business, absent unusual circumstances however, does not breach that duty of “reasonable and ordinary care” by not removing snow or ice from outdoor surfaces during a storm or for a “reasonable time thereafter.” This means that anyone visiting a business during a storm or shortly thereafter should be aware of the weather and its probable effect on the parking lots and sidewalks they intend to use. (more…)