damage instruction in Missouri

1979Concerning the damage instruction in that case, the court in Crawford, 470 S.W.2d at 533 , quoting Boten v. Breckiein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 93 (Mo.1970), stated that its purpose is to “fairly compensate plaintiffs for their damages.” In light of the evidence on damages adduced at trial in the instant case, the most certain and equitable relief would be specific performance of the contracts for deeds, but defendant’s misconduct, resulting in the loss of title by the execution sales in the mechanics’ lien suits, made such relief unavailable.

1979Concerning the damage instruction in that case, the court in Crawford, 470 S.W.2d at 533 , quoting Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 93 (Mo.1970), stated that its purpose is to "fairly compensate plaintiffs for their damages." In light of the evidence on damages adduced at trial in the instant case, the most certain and equitable relief would be specific performance of the contracts for deeds, but defendant's misconduct, resulting in the loss of title by the execution sales in the mechanics' lien suits, made such relief unavailable.

1993The fact that there was an actual damage instruction contained in the breach of contract package does not cure the error, even if it was, as defendants argue, the same damage instruction that should have been included in the fraudulent misrepresentation package. [1] The jury was instructed that that damage instruction applied only to the breach of contract claim. *750 Further, the rule that a party cannot complain or predicate error on the failure to give an instruction where such party failed to timely tender and request, during the instruction conference, a proposed instruction on the matter

1993Further, the rule that a party cannot complain or predicate error on the failure to give an instruction where such party failed to timely tender and request, during the instruction conference, a proposed instruction on the matter, as expressed in Dudeck v. Ellis, 399 S.W.2d 80, 98 (Mo.1966) and Verdin v. Agnew, 715 S.W.2d 544, 546 (Mo.App.1986), and argued by defendant, does not apply under these circumstances.

1993The fact that there was an actual damage instruction contained in the breach of contract package does not cure the error, even if it was, as defendants argue, the same damage instruction that should have been included in the fraudulent misrepresentation package. [1] The jury was instructed that that damage instruction applied only to the breach of contract claim. *750 Further, the rule that a party cannot complain or predicate error on the failure to give an instruction where such party failed to timely tender and request, during the instruction conference, a proposed instruction on the matter

1993Further, the rule that a party cannot complain or predicate error on the failure to give an instruction where such party failed to timely tender and request, during the instruction conference, a proposed instruction on the matter, as expressed in Dudeck v. Ellis, 399 S.W.2d 80, 98 (Mo.1966) and Verdin v. Agnew, 715 S.W.2d 544, 546 (Mo.App.1986), and argued by defendant, does not apply under these circumstances.

1979Concerning the damage instruction in that case, the court in Crawford, 470 S.W.2d at 533 , quoting Boten v. Breckiein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 93 (Mo.1970), stated that its purpose is to “fairly compensate plaintiffs for their damages.” In light of the evidence on damages adduced at trial in the instant case, the most certain and equitable relief would be specific performance of the contracts for deeds, but defendant’s misconduct, resulting in the loss of title by the execution sales in the mechanics’ lien suits, made such relief unavailable.

1979Concerning the damage instruction in that case, the court in Crawford, 470 S.W.2d at 533 , quoting Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 93 (Mo.1970), stated that its purpose is to "fairly compensate plaintiffs for their damages." In light of the evidence on damages adduced at trial in the instant case, the most certain and equitable relief would be specific performance of the contracts for deeds, but defendant's misconduct, resulting in the loss of title by the execution sales in the mechanics' lien suits, made such relief unavailable.

1997Citing to Hereford Concrete Products, Inc. v. Aerobic Services, Inc., 565 S.W.2d 176 (Mo.App.1978), the court denied appellants’ motion.

1997Id. at 178 .

1990Afshari Enterprises, Inc., 599 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.App.1980) having to do with damages to real property, breach of contract, cost of repair and/or diminution in value, as opposed to a damage instruction for a breach of warranty case as submitted by Plaintiffs under Instruction No. 7; that the Court’s giving of Instruction No. 10 (a modified 4.02 MAI) was against the law in the State of Missouri and coupled with the incompetent and unqualified witnesses and opinions, both lay and expert, introduced by Plaintiff and admitted by the Court, over the objection of Defendant, produced a verdict against th

1984Hensic v. Afshari Enterprises, Inc., 599 S.W.2d 522, 524 (Mo.App.1980) states as follows: When a building contractor breaches his contract by defective performance, ... two methods are commonly used to measure the resulting damages.

1964Vinson v. East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Mo., 280 S.W.2d 124, 133 (9); Petty *609 v. Henroid, Mo., 313 S.W.2d 688, 690 (4); Downing v. Dixon, supra, 313 S.W.2d loc. cit. 649(2).

1958Therein, after enumerating the elements to be considered by the jury in fixing plaintiff’s damages, the instruction further recited, “You are further instructed, that in connection with such damages, if any, the law does not afford you any standard of measurement more accurate than that given you above, but in connection therewith, and all of the evidence relating thereto, you are permitted to take into consideration your common knowledge and experience in life, except that you cannot award plaintiff more than he has sued for in his petition.” In the case of Vinson v. East Texas Motor Freight

2020Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 631 , 355 P.3d 667, 673 (2015).

2020Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, 302 Kan. 625, 631 , 355 P.3d 667, 673 (2015).

2013In Todd , this Court examined a liability policy that provided coverage for accidents but not “liability of an insured who knowingly committed an unlawful act ... or who intentionally caused damage, harm, or injury.” Todd, 223 S.W.3d at 162 (omission in original).

2009Point IV seeks plain error review of the damage instruction. 8 Plain error rarely is used in civil cases (Martha’s Hands, LLC v. Starrs, 208 S.W.3d 309, 315 (Mo.App.2006)), and even in criminal cases, rarely for instructional error.

2009See, e.g., State v. Robertson, 182 S.W.3d 747, 757 (Mo.App.2006); State v. Shockley, 98 S.W.3d 885, 891 (Mo.App.2003).

2009See, e.g., State v. Robertson, 182 S.W.3d 747, 757 (Mo.App.2006); State v. Shockley, 98 S.W.3d 885, 891 (Mo.App.2003).

2009See Fenlon, 266 S.W.3d at 854 ; Moore, 169 S.W.3d at 599 .

2004McDowell v. Schuette, 610 S.W.2d 29, 39 (Mo.App.

2004McDowell, 610 S.W.2d at 39 .

2003See Steffens v. Paramount Properties, Inc., 667 S.W.2d 725, 728 (Mo.App.1984).

1999Snelling, supra. Plaintiff alleged that, as a result of the accident, she sustained injuries to her neck, back, the index finger of her left hand, and nerves.

1999The damage instruction required the jury to “compensate *99 Plaintiff for any damages you believe she' sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future as a direct result of the occurrence mentioned in the evidence.” Id. at 540 (emphasis added).