submissible case claim in Missouri

2001Cook states that: "where there is independent and conflicting evidence to support either of two factual scenarios which would make a submissible case or defense but could not both be true, the cases have routinely approved submission of both theories in the disjunctive." Id. at 81.

2001Cook states that: “where there is independent and conflicting evidence to support either of two factual scenarios which would make a submissible case or defense but could not both be true, the cases have routinely approved submission of both theories in the disjunctive.” Id. at 81.

2022Thus, a preliminary inquiry before applying the presumption is whether adequate information is available absent a warning.” Moreover, “[a]s causation is a required element of the plaintiffs' case, the burden is on plaintiffs to show that lack of [prior] knowledge.” Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 762 (Mo. banc 2011) (citations omitted) (emphasis in the original). “‘[T]he term “presumption” is used to mean “makes a prima facie case,” i.e., creates a submissible case that the warning would have been heeded.’” Id. at 762 (quoting Tune v. Synergy Gas Corp., 883 S.W.2d 10, 14 (Mo. banc 199

2011"If there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that the plaintiff did not already know the danger, there is a presumption that a warning will be heeded." Tune, 883 S.W.2d at 14 . "[T]he term `presumption' is used to mean `makes a prima facie case,' i.e., creates a submissible case that the warning would have been heeded." Id.

2012Howe v. ALD Servs., Inc., 941 S.W.2d 645, 650 (Mo.App.1997).

1998Id. at 650 .

2024See Koppe, 318 S.W.3d at 240 ; Mercer, 515 S.W.3d at 241–44.

2022Thus, a preliminary inquiry before applying the presumption is whether adequate information is available absent a warning.” Moreover, “[a]s causation is a required element of the plaintiffs' case, the burden is on plaintiffs to show that lack of [prior] knowledge.” Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 762 (Mo. banc 2011) (citations omitted) (emphasis in the original). “‘[T]he term “presumption” is used to mean “makes a prima facie case,” i.e., creates a submissible case that the warning would have been heeded.’” Id. at 762 (quoting Tune v. Synergy Gas Corp., 883 S.W.2d 10, 14 (Mo. banc 199

2022Thus, a preliminary inquiry before applying the presumption is whether adequate information is available absent a warning.” Moreover, “[a]s causation is a required element of the plaintiffs' case, the burden is on plaintiffs to show that lack of [prior] knowledge.” Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 762 (Mo. banc 2011) (citations omitted) (emphasis in the original). “‘[T]he term “presumption” is used to mean “makes a prima facie case,” i.e., creates a submissible case that the warning would have been heeded.’” Id. at 762 (quoting Tune v. Synergy Gas Corp., 883 S.W.2d 10, 14 (Mo. banc 199

2020See, e.g., Payne v. Fiesta Corp., 543 S.W.3d 109, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Ellison, 437 S.W.3d at 768 ) (providing we will only reverse a denial of a directed verdict or judgment as a matter of law if the plaintiff did not make a submissible case or the defense established an affirmative defense as a matter of law); Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 13, 39 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (en banc) (internal citation omitted) (noting a presumption in favor of reversing judgments notwithstanding the verdict); Li Lin v. Ellis, 594 S.W.3d 238 , 241 (Mo. banc 2020) (per curiam) (internal citat

2020See, e.g., Payne v. Fiesta Corp., 543 S.W.3d 109, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Ellison, 437 S.W.3d at 768 ) (providing we will only reverse a denial of a directed verdict or judgment as a matter of law if the plaintiff did not make a submissible case or the defense established an affirmative defense as a matter of law); Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 13, 39 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (en banc) (internal citation omitted) (noting a presumption in favor of reversing judgments notwithstanding the verdict); Li Lin v. Ellis, 594 S.W.3d 238 , 241 (Mo. banc 2020) (per curiam) (internal citat

2020See, e.g., Payne v. Fiesta Corp., 543 S.W.3d 109, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing Ellison, 437 S.W.3d at 768 ) (providing we will only reverse a denial of a directed verdict or judgment as a matter of law if the plaintiff did not make a submissible case or the defense established an affirmative defense as a matter of law); Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 13, 39 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (en banc) (internal citation omitted) (noting a presumption in favor of reversing judgments notwithstanding the verdict); Li Lin v. Ellis, 594 S.W.3d 238 , 241 (Mo. banc 2020) (per curiam) (internal citat

2016See Kieffer v. Icaza, 376 S.W.3d 653, 657 (Mo. banc 2012) (“To make a submissible case on a claim of breach of contract, [Plaintiff] had to prove the existence of a valid contract, the rights and obligations of each party, a breach and damages.”).

2009See id.

2009Wasson, 964 S.W.2d at 524 .

2006Evans v. Werle, 31 S.W.3d 489, 493 (Mo.App.

2004Because we are to affirm the trial court’s grant of a JNOV on any basis alleged in the motion that is supported by the record, Faust v. Ryder Commercial Leasing & Services, 954 S.W.2d 383, 388 (Mo.App.1997), and because we find that even if the respondent was not entitled to sovereign immunity, the appellant failed to make a submissible case on his claim by failing to present evidence establishing an *447 essential proof element of his claim, causation, we affirm.

2003See Id.

2002Similarly, in Wallace v. Bounds, [ 369 S.W.2d 138, 141 (Mo.1963) ], the plaintiff was required to elect which statutory cause of action, personal injury or wrongful death, would be submitted to the jury where the evidence proffered to support both theories was the same and the causes of action were mutually exclusive. *839 “In contrast, where there is independent and conflicting evidence to support either of two factual scenarios which would make a submissible case or defense but could not both be true, the cases have routinely approved submission of both theories in the disjunctive.

2000“In order to make a submissible case on a claim of breach of contract, the party alleging a breach must prove: (1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) the rights and obligations of each party; (3) a breach; and (4) damages.” Wetherbee, Ltd. v. Allred, 969 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Mo.App.1998).

1995See Scott v. Car City Motor Co., Inc., 847 S.W.2d 861, 864 [3] (Mo.App.W.D.1992).

1992Moreover, the Haynams requested instructions that required a finding of “outrageous conduct because of defendant’s evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others” for both actual damages for wrongful termination and for punitive damages. 2 Therefore, we need only determine whether the Haynams made a submissible case on the standard of conduct necessary to award punitive damages as set forth in Burnett v. Griffith, 769 S.W.2d 780, 789 (Mo. banc 1989), because plaintiffs submitted their claim for actual damages as well as punitive damages based upon this standard.