non-MAI instruction in Missouri

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).

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 .

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.

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.

2009When there is no applicable MAI instruction and a non-MAI instruction must be used, 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.” Rule 70.02(b); see Scates, 134 S.W.3d at 742 .

2009“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.’ ” Id. (quoting Hosto v. Union Elec.

2006“On 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.’ ” Mehrer, 157 S.W.3d at 323 (citing Seitz v. Lemay Bank & Trust Co., 959 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo. banc 1998) (additional citations omitted).

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)).

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 .

2015McCullough v. Commerce Bank, 349 S.W.3d 389, 396-97 (Mo. App.W.D.2011); Burrows v. Union Pacific R.

2013McCullough, 349 S.W.3d at 396 .

2009Co., 51 S.W.3d 133, 142 (Mo.App.2001)).

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.

2025See Koon v. Walden, 539 S.W.3d 752, 769 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (“To require that the trial court give a non-MAI instruction, a party has to prove that the MAI instruction submitted to the jury misstates the law.”).

2024“And in giving such a non-MAI instruction, ‘the [trial] court must adopt an instruction that follows the substantive law and can be readily understood by the jury.’” Swartz, 517 S.W.3d at 58 (citation omitted).

2023See Dale, 309 S.W.3d at 386 (“[T]he giving [of] a non-MAI instruction instead of an applicable MAI instruction is presumed to be reversible error.”).

2019"A non-MAI instruction must conform to the theory of MAI." Steenrod v. Klipsch Hauling Co., Inc. 789 S.W.2d 158, 167 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990).

2019"Therefore, we test the instruction as to whether it follows the substantive law and can be readily understood." Id.

2017“In Missouri, all contracts have an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” Lucero v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 400 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (internal quotation omitted).

2017“The instructions together must require a finding of all the ultimate facts necessary to sustain a verdict.” Durley v. Board of Police Comm’rs, 238 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007).

2017See Hervey, 379 S.W.3d at 159 ; Beebe, 200 S.W.3d at 128-29 .

2014See Peel v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 408 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Mo.App.2013).

2012Co. of Mo., 311 S.W.3d 895, 903 (Mo.App.2010) (citation omitted). “‘[Gjross negligence’ is a term which appears infrequently in appellate decisions of this state” because Missouri “has consistently refused to recognize differing degrees of negligence.” Boyer v. Tilzer, 831 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Mo.App.1992).

2012Doe v. McFarlane, 207 S.W.3d 52, 75 (Mo.App.

2012Co. of Mo., 311 S.W.3d 895, 903 (Mo.App.2010) (citation omitted). “‘[Gjross negligence’ is a term which appears infrequently in appellate decisions of this state” because Missouri “has consistently refused to recognize differing degrees of negligence.” Boyer v. Tilzer, 831 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Mo.App.1992).

2010Compare Burns, 808 S.W.2d at 3 (factors suggesting a verdict may have been coerced included: inconsistent verdicts for the first and second count, the possibly coerced verdict being delivered quickly after the challenged instruction, the oral instruction contained a misstatement of fact and law, and the use of a non-MAI instruction).

2007Smith v. Kovac, 927 S.W.2d 493, 497 (Mo.Ct.App.E.D.1996).

2006Wiskur v. Johnson, 156 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Mo.App.2005).

2006“The verdict is reversed if the offending instruction misdirected, misled, or confused the jury, resulting in prejudicial error.” Harvey v. Washington, 95 S.W.3d 93, 97 (Mo. banc 2003).