MAI instruction in Missouri

2018LI (7th ed. 2012). " 'Accordingly, where there is deviation from an applicable MAI instruction which does not need modification under the facts in the particular case, prejudicial error will be presumed unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from such deviation.' " Abbott , 375 S.W.3d at 109 (quoting Brown , 421 S.W.2d at 259 ).

2018LI (7th ed. 2012). " 'Accordingly, where there is deviation from an applicable MAI instruction which does not need modification under the facts in the particular case, prejudicial error will be presumed unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from such deviation.' " Abbott , 375 S.W.3d at 109 (quoting Brown , 421 S.W.2d at 259 ).

2019"We review a proposed non-MAI instruction to determine 'whether the jury [could have understood] the instruction and whether the instruction follow[ed][the] applicable substantive law by submitting the ultimate facts required to sustain a verdict.'" Wiskur v. Johnson, 156 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (quoting Seitz v. Lemay Bank and Trust, Co., 959 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo. banc 1998).

2017Second, a not-in-MAI instruction must “follow[] 'substahtive law by submitting the ultimate facts necessary to sustain a verdict.” Seitz v. Lemay Bank & Trust, 959 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo. banc 1998) (quotation omitted).

2023Generally, “[w]henever Missouri Approved Instructions contains an instruction applicable in a particular case that the appropriate party requests or the court decides to submit, such instruction shall be given to the exclusion of any other instructions on the same subject.” Rule 70.02(b); See also Hervey, 379 S.W.3d at 159 ; Syn, Inc. v. Beebe, 200 S.W.3d 122, 128 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (“The law is well-settled that where an MAI instruction applies to the case, the use of such instruction is mandatory.”).

2023Generally, “[w]henever Missouri Approved Instructions contains an instruction applicable in a particular case that the appropriate party requests or the court decides to submit, such instruction shall be given to the exclusion of any other instructions on the same subject.” Rule 70.02(b); See also Hervey, 379 S.W.3d at 159 ; Syn, Inc. v. Beebe, 200 S.W.3d 122, 128 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (“The law is well-settled that where an MAI instruction applies to the case, the use of such instruction is mandatory.”).

2013See also Smith, 927 S.W.2d at 497 (a modified MAI instruction should follow the substantive law).

2010The test of a modified MAI or not-in-MAI instruction is whether it follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.” Smith v. Kovac, 927 S.W.2d 493, 497 (Mo.App.1996).

2017“When there is no applicable MAI instruction, a non-MAI instruction may be given if it conforms to the requirements of Rule 70.02 in that it is simple, brief, impartial and free from argument.” City of Kansas City v. Habelitz, 857 S.W.2d 299, 303 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993).

2012“When there is no applicable MAI instruction, a non-MAI instruction may be given if it conforms to the requirements of Rule 70.02 in that it is simple, brief, impartial and free from argument.” City of Kansas City v. Habelitz, 857 S.W.2d 299, 303 (Mo.App.1993).

2020Co., Inc., 157 S.W.3d 665, 671 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (finding that it is well settled that when a MAI instruction is applicable, its use is mandatory) (quoting Bueche v. Kansas City, 492 S.W.2d 835, 840 (Mo. banc 1973)); see also Brown v. St.

2020Co., Inc., 157 S.W.3d 665, 671 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (finding that it is well settled that when a MAI instruction is applicable, its use is mandatory) (quoting Bueche v. Kansas City, 492 S.W.2d 835, 840 (Mo. banc 1973)); see also Brown v. St.

2013Karnes, 809 S.W.2d at 740 .

2013“As with the MAI’s, a modified MAI or not-in-MAI instruction should require a finding of all ultimate facts necessary to sustain a verdict.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

2021"When there is no applicable MAI instruction, the instruction given must be 'simple, brief, impartial, free from argument, and shall not submit to the jury or require findings of detailed evidentiary facts.'" Morgan, 272 S.W.3d at 911 (quoting Rule 70.02(b)).

2017“And in giving such a non-MAI instruction, ‘the court must adopt an instruction that follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.’” [Morgan v. State, 272 S.W.3d 909, 911 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009)] (quoting Lewis v. State, 152 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004)); Rule 70.02(b).

2017Id.

2004Under those circumstances, where there are no applicable MAI instructions “so that an instruction not in MAI must be given,” Rule 70.02(b) requires that “such instructions shall be simple, brief, impartial, free from argument, and shall not submit to the jury or require findings of detailed eviden-tiary facts.” Moreover, in adopting a non-MAI instruction, “the court must adopt an instruction that follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.” Hosto, 51 S.W.3d at 142 (citing Murphy v. City of Springfield, 794 S.W.2d 275, 278 (Mo.App.

2019"We review a proposed non-MAI instruction to determine 'whether the jury [could have understood] the instruction and whether the instruction follow[ed][the] applicable substantive law by submitting the ultimate facts required to sustain a verdict.'" Wiskur v. Johnson, 156 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (quoting Seitz v. Lemay Bank and Trust, Co., 959 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo. banc 1998).

2008Wiskur v. Johnson, 156 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo.App.2005). 7 “What the ultimate facts are in a given case are determined on a case-by-case basis.” Id.

2013See Rice, 116 S.W.3d at 606 (emphasis added).

2013See Rice, 116 S.W.3d at 606 (emphasis added).

2012“A not-in-MAI instruction ... is reviewed to determine ‘whether the jury [could] understand the instruction and whether the instruction follows applicable substantive law by submitting the ultimate facts required to sustain a verdict.’ ” Seitz v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co., 959 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo. banc 1998) (quoting Brown v. Van Noy, 879 S.W.2d 667, 672 (Mo.App.

2005On appeal, we review a non-MAI instruction to determine “whether the jury [could] understand the instruction and whether the instruction follows applicable substantive law by submitting the ultimate facts required to sustain a verdict.” Seitz v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co., 959 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo. banc 1998) (quoting Brown v. Van Noy, 879 S.W.2d 667, 672 (Mo.App.1994)).

1968Louis Public Service Company, Mo., 421 S.W.2d 255, 259 (3) where there was an omission from a MAI given instruction this court in banc held: “Accordingly, where there is deviation from an applicable MAI instruction which does not need modification under the facts in the particular case, prejudicial error will be presumed unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from such deviation.” To the same effect are the holdings in Murphy v. Land, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 505, 507 (3-7) and Gousetis v. Bange, Mo., 425 S.W.2d 91 , decided March 11,

1968Louis Public Service Company, Mo., 421 S.W.2d 255, 259 (3) where there was an omission from a MAI given instruction this court in banc held: “Accordingly, where there is deviation from an applicable MAI instruction which does not need modification under the facts in the particular case, prejudicial error will be presumed unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from such deviation.” To the same effect are the holdings in Murphy v. Land, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 505, 507 (3-7) and Gousetis v. Bange, Mo., 425 S.W.2d 91 , decided March 11,

2006White v. James, 848 S.W.2d 577, 582 (Mo.App.1998) (quoting Sooter v. Magic Lantern, Inc., 771 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo.App.1989) (“any error in the instruction is not presumptively prejudicial as it would be if the instruction had deviated from an applicable MAI instruction, and the burden of showing prejudice is on the plaintiffs”)).

2006White v. James, 848 S.W.2d 577, 582 (Mo.App.1998) (quoting Sooter v. Magic Lantern, Inc., 771 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo.App.1989) (“any error in the instruction is not presumptively prejudicial as it would be if the instruction had deviated from an applicable MAI instruction, and the burden of showing prejudice is on the plaintiffs”)).

1995Footwear Unlimited, Inc. v. Katzenberg, 683 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Mo.App.1984).

1991Murphy v. City of Springfield, 794 S.W.2d 275, 278 (Mo.App.1990); Footwear Unlimited, Inc., v. Katzenberg, 683 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Mo.App.1984).

1987Jarrell v. Fort Worth Steel & Manufacturing Co., 666 S.W.2d 828, 837 (Mo.App.1984).

1986“Having failed to request such a definition at the time of the instruction conference, [a party] will not be heard on appeal to complain that such a not-in-MAI instruction should have been given.” Valiant v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 698 S.W.2d 584, 587 (Mo.App.1985); Jarrell v. Fort Worth Steel & Manufacturing Co., 666 S.W.2d 828, 837 (Mo.App.1984).

2017“And in giving such a non-MAI instruction, ‘the court must adopt an instruction that follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.’” [Morgan v. State, 272 S.W.3d 909, 911 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009)] (quoting Lewis v. State, 152 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004)); Rule 70.02(b).

2010“And in giving such a non-MAI instruction, ‘the court must adopt an instruction that follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.’ ” Morgan, 272 S.W.3d at 911 (quoting Lewis v. State, 152 S.W.3d 325, 329 (Mo.App.

2011“To require the giving of a non-MAI instruction, a party must prove that the MAI instructions submitted to the jury misstate the law.” McBryde v. Ritenour School Dist., 207 S.W.3d 162, 168 (Mo.App.2006).

2010If a non-MAI instruction is proffered, the party offering the non-approved instruction “must prove that the MAI instructions submitted to the jury misstate the law.” McBryde, 207 S.W.3d at 168 .

2020Co., Inc., 157 S.W.3d 665, 671 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (finding that it is well settled that when a MAI instruction is applicable, its use is mandatory) (quoting Bueche v. Kansas City, 492 S.W.2d 835, 840 (Mo. banc 1973)); see also Brown v. St.

2020Co., Inc., 157 S.W.3d 665, 671 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (finding that it is well settled that when a MAI instruction is applicable, its use is mandatory) (quoting Bueche v. Kansas City, 492 S.W.2d 835, 840 (Mo. banc 1973)); see also Brown v. St.

2016See Edwards, 60 S.W.3d at 612 (where the law covered by an MAI has been materially altered by statute, the trial court must modify the MAI instruction to follow the change in the law). 12 .

2016See Edwards, 60 S.W.3d at 612 (where the law covered by an MAI has been materially altered by statute, the trial court must modify the MAI instruction to follow the change in the law). 12 .

1993In fact, to reverse a jury verdict on the grounds of instructional error regarding a not-in-MAI instruction, “it must appear that the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury; the burden to prove the error rests with the party challenging the instruction.” MFA, 817 S.W.2d at 663 (citing Cornell, 712 S.W.2d at 682 ).

1992Cornell v. Texaco, 712 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Mo. banc 1986).

2025McCroskey, 519 S.W.2d at 721 (“In almost all cases where an MAI instruction has undergone revision, instruction preparers should conclude that the old form may no longer properly be used.

2025McCroskey, 519 S.W.2d at 721 (“In almost all cases where an MAI instruction has undergone revision, instruction preparers should conclude that the old form may no longer properly be used.

2023Generally, “[w]henever Missouri Approved Instructions contains an instruction applicable in a particular case that the appropriate party requests or the court decides to submit, such instruction shall be given to the exclusion of any other instructions on the same subject.” Rule 70.02(b); See also Hervey, 379 S.W.3d at 159 ; Syn, Inc. v. Beebe, 200 S.W.3d 122, 128 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (“The law is well-settled that where an MAI instruction applies to the case, the use of such instruction is mandatory.”).

2023Generally, “[w]henever Missouri Approved Instructions contains an instruction applicable in a particular case that the appropriate party requests or the court decides to submit, such instruction shall be given to the exclusion of any other instructions on the same subject.” Rule 70.02(b); See also Hervey, 379 S.W.3d at 159 ; Syn, Inc. v. Beebe, 200 S.W.3d 122, 128 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (“The law is well-settled that where an MAI instruction applies to the case, the use of such instruction is mandatory.”).

2023Jude Med., Inc., 559 S.W.3d 923, 925 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018)).

2019However, the not-in-MAI instruction must follow the applicable substantive law.” Id. (citing Am.

2018There is no Missouri Approved Instruction concerning a theory of comparative fault for "leaving a place of safety" in the context of a cyclist-vehicular collision at a marked crosswalk that contained a stop sign for the bus driver and where it was conceded the cyclist had the right of way. 9 "When there is no applicable MAI instruction, a non-MAI instruction may be given if it conforms to the requirements of Rule 70.02 in that it is simple, brief, impartial and free from argument." Edwards v. Gerstein , 363 S.W.3d 155 , 166 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).

2018When giving a non-MAI instruction, "the court must adopt an instruction that follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury." Edwards , 363 S.W.3d at 166 .

2018LI (7th ed. 2012). " 'Accordingly, where there is deviation from an applicable MAI instruction which does not need modification under the facts in the particular case, prejudicial error will be presumed unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from such deviation.' " Abbott , 375 S.W.3d at 109 (quoting Brown , 421 S.W.2d at 259 ).

2018LI (7th ed. 2012). " 'Accordingly, where there is deviation from an applicable MAI instruction which does not need modification under the facts in the particular case, prejudicial error will be presumed unless it is made perfectly clear by the proponent of the instruction that no prejudice could have resulted from such deviation.' " Abbott , 375 S.W.3d at 109 (quoting Brown , 421 S.W.2d at 259 ).

2018See 106 S.W.3d at 3-5 (holding that where the trial court gave an instruction based on the elements in MAI 22.03, there was no error because "when negligence per se is the basis of liability ... the MAI instruction for that action is still applicable; only the element of negligence, or breach of the standard of care, is removed").

2018See 106 S.W.3d at 3-5 (holding that where the trial court gave an instruction based on the elements in MAI 22.03, there was no error because "when negligence per se is the basis of liability ... the MAI instruction for that action is still applicable; only the element of negligence, or breach of the standard of care, is removed").