exception to sovereign immunity in Missouri

2021Louis, 293 S.W.3d 133, 137 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (“Missouri courts have routinely held . . . the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading with specificity facts giving rise to an exception to sovereign immunity when suing a public entity”).

2014And “Missouri courts have routinely held that sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense and that the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading with specificity facts giving rise to an exception to sovereign immunity when suing a public entity.” Richardson, 293 S.W.3d at 137 .

2014Because “finding a municipality liable for torts is the exception to the general rule of sovereign immunity, a plaintiff must plead with specificity facts demonstrating his claim falls within an exception to sovereign immunity.” Topps v. City of Country Club Hills, 272 S.W.3d 409, 415 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

2014Because “finding a municipality liable for torts is the exception to the general rule of sovereign immunity, a plaintiff must plead with specificity facts demonstrating his claim falls within an exception to sovereign immunity.” Topps v. City of Country Club Hills, 272 S.W.3d 409, 415 (Mo.App.

2008A municipality that carries liability insurance to cover claims or causes of action for property damages or personal injuries “is liable for those damages or injuries only to the extent of the insurance so carried.” Parish, 231 S.W.3d at 246 . “[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating the existence of the insurance and that it covered his particular claim.” Id. “[Finding a municipality liable for torts is the exception to *360 the general rule of sovereign immunity, and a plaintiff must plead with specificity facts demonstrating his claim falls within an exception to sovereign immunit

2008Because “finding a municipality liable for torts is the exception to the general rule of sovereign immunity, [ ] a plaintiff must plead with specificity facts demonstrating his claim falls within an exception to sovereign immunity.” Parish, 231 S.W.3d at 242.

2025"Missouri courts 15 have routinely held that sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense and that the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading with specificity facts giving rise to an exception to sovereign immunity when suing a public entity." Crouch, 444 S.W.3d 517, 522 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014).

2021See id. at 19 n.1; Richardson v. City of St.

2021Wille claims she sufficiently pled her claim falls within an exception to sovereign immunity because section 287.780 itself waives the Curators’ sovereign immunity from workers’ 3 See Krasney v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 765 S.W.2d 646, 650 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989) (“A retaliatory discharge in violation of § 287.780 . . . constitutes an independent tort. . . .”); Cook v. Hussmann Corp., 852 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Mo. banc 1993) (“§ 287.780 created a judicially cognizable independent tort”). 7 compensation retaliatory discharge claims.

2021Wille claims she sufficiently pled her claim falls within an exception to sovereign immunity because section 287.780 itself waives the Curators’ sovereign immunity from workers’ 3 See Krasney v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 765 S.W.2d 646, 650 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989) (“A retaliatory discharge in violation of § 287.780 . . . constitutes an independent tort. . . .”); Cook v. Hussmann Corp., 852 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Mo. banc 1993) (“§ 287.780 created a judicially cognizable independent tort”). 7 compensation retaliatory discharge claims.

2021Wille claims she sufficiently pled her claim falls within an exception to sovereign immunity because section 287.780 itself waives the Curators’ sovereign immunity from workers’ 3 See Krasney v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 765 S.W.2d 646, 650 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989) (“A retaliatory discharge in violation of § 287.780 . . . constitutes an independent tort. . . .”); Cook v. Hussmann Corp., 852 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Mo. banc 1993) (“§ 287.780 created a judicially cognizable independent tort”). 7 compensation retaliatory discharge claims.

2021Wille claims she sufficiently pled her claim falls within an exception to sovereign immunity because section 287.780 itself waives the Curators’ sovereign immunity from workers’ 3 See Krasney v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 765 S.W.2d 646, 650 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989) (“A retaliatory discharge in violation of § 287.780 . . . constitutes an independent tort. . . .”); Cook v. Hussmann Corp., 852 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Mo. banc 1993) (“§ 287.780 created a judicially cognizable independent tort”). 7 compensation retaliatory discharge claims.

2021City of Kansas City v. Harrell, 575 S.W.3d 489, 492 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) 50 for its acts or omissions.

2019Louis Community College Dist., 830 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992)).3 Sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense; instead, when suing a public entity, the burden is on the plaintiff to plead facts with specificity that give rise to an exception to sovereign immunity.

2015Louis Sewer Dist., 848 S.W.2d 519, 520 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). * We note Section 537.600.2 makes clear that the two statutory waivers in Section 537.600.1 are applicable even where the public entity acts ina governmental capacity, but neither of these is relevant here. 8 Turning to whether MSD’s petition was sufficient regarding a waiver of sovereign immunity, “Missouri courts have routinely held that sovereign immunity is not an affirmative defense and that the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading with specificity facts giving rise to an exception to sovereign immunity when suing a public ent

2014While Missouri courts have found sovereign immunity and official immunity are “distinct legal concepts,” Lynn v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc., 710 S.W.2d 359 , 360 (Mo.App.E.D.1986), the Supreme Court of Missouri specifically held “ ‘[ijmmunity’ connotes not only immunity from judgment but also immunity from suit.” State ex rel Missouri Dept. of Agriculture v. McHenry, 687 S.W.2d 178, 181 (Mo. banc 1985).

2012Joseph Light & Power Co. v. Kaw Valley Tunneling, Inc., 589 S.W.2d 260, 266-67 (Mo. banc 1979) (concluding that tort liability applies to municipalities “in the case of construction of storm sewers” and in “sanitary sewers” because “this court has never recognized a distinction between construction of the two types of sewers” ...

2012Missouri law is clear that “by pleading that the injuries were caused by city-constructed drainage systems, [plaintiff] pleaded facts showing an exception to sovereign immunity because the operation of municipal drainage systems is, as a matter of law, a proprietary function.” Thomas v. City of Kansas City, 92 S.W.3d 92, 101 (Mo. App. W.D.2002); see also St.

2012To the contrary, this Court has held that “[b]y pleading that the injuries were caused by city-constructed drainage systems, [plaintiff] pleaded facts showing an exception to sovereign immunity because the operation of municipal drainage systems is, as a matter of law, a proprietary function.” Id. (emphasis added). 5 The City attempts to distinguish Thomas by arguing that Thomas “involved property damage caused by water from both drainage systems owned by both Raytown and Kansas City to plaintiffs home.

2002See Fletcher, 708 S.W.2d at 167 .

1994We also find a jury question exists as to the remaining elements of proof needed to create an exception to sovereign immunity; i.e. whether the alleged dangerous condition created a foreseeable risk of harm of the type appellant suf fered -See Oldaker v. Peters, 869 S.W.2d 94, 100 (Mo.App.W.D., 1993) citing Sima v. APC Bldg.

1994Corp., 730 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Mo.App., W.D.1987) for the proposition that the test for foreseeability is not whether a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen the exact injury but whether, after the occurrences, the injury looks to be the reasonable and probable consequence of the act or omission of the respondent; and whether a public employee created the risk or the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition, we note the deposition of Charles Robert Simpson, District Construction Engineer for MHTC, wherein he admitted another rear-end collision occurred at the same