Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.263 (2026)

Bifurcated trial, when, procedure

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

510.263. Bifurcated trial, when, procedure — post-trial motion for credit on punitive damages, procedure — credit not allowed, when — doctrine of remittitur and additur applied to awards — discovery. — 1. All actions tried before a jury involving punitive damages, including tort actions based upon improper health care, shall be conducted in a bifurcated trial before the same jury if requested by any party.

2. In the first stage of a bifurcated trial, in which the issue of punitive damages is submissible, the jury shall determine liability for compensatory damages, the amount of compensatory damages, including nominal damages, and the liability of a defendant for punitive damages. Evidence of defendant's financial condition shall not be admissible in the first stage of such trial unless admissible for a proper purpose other than the amount of punitive damages.

3. If during the first stage of a bifurcated trial the jury determines that a defendant is liable for punitive damages, that jury shall determine, in a second stage of trial, the amount of punitive damages to be awarded against such defendant. Evidence of such defendant's net worth shall be admissible during the second stage of such trial.

4. Within the time for filing a motion for new trial, a defendant may file a post-trial motion requesting the amount awarded by the jury as punitive damages be credited by the court with amounts previously paid in any state or federal court by the defendant for punitive damages arising out of the same conduct on which the imposition of punitive damages is based. At any hearing, the burden on all issues relating to such a credit shall be on the defendant and either party may introduce relevant evidence on such motion. Such a motion shall be determined by the trial court within the time and according to procedures applicable to motions for new trial. If the trial court sustains such a motion the trial court shall credit the jury award of punitive damages by the amount found by the trial court to have been previously paid by the defendant arising out of the same conduct and enter judgment accordingly. If the defendant fails to establish entitlement to a credit under the provisions of this section, or the trial court finds from the evidence that the defendant's conduct out of which the prior punitive damage award arose was not the same conduct on which the imposition of punitive damages is based in the pending action, or the trial court finds the defendant unreasonably continued the conduct after acquiring actual knowledge of the dangerous nature of such conduct, the trial court shall disallow such credit, or, if the trial court finds that the laws regarding punitive damages in the state or federal court in which the prior award of punitive damages was entered substantially and materially deviate from the law of the state of Missouri, except with respect to section 537.675, and that the nature of such deviation provides good cause for disallowance of the credit based on the public policy of Missouri, then the trial court may disallow all or any part of the credit provided by this section.

5. The credit allowable under this section shall not apply to causes of action for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, criminal conversation, malicious prosecution or fraud.

6. The doctrines of remittitur and additur, based on the trial judge's assessment of the totality of the surrounding circumstances, shall apply to punitive damage awards.

7. As used in this section, "punitive damage award" means an award for punitive or exemplary damages or an award for aggravating circumstances.

8. Discovery as to a defendant's assets shall be allowed only after a trial court has granted leave to file a pleading seeking punitive damages in accordance with subsection 5 of section 510.261.

--------

(L. 1987 H.B. 700 § 39, A.L. 2005 H.B. 393, A.L. 2020 S.B. 591)

CROSS REFERENCE:

Applicability of statute changes for cases filed after August 28, 2005, 538.305; for cases filed after August 28, 2020, 510.262

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Gail & Darrell Mansfield v. Caleb Horner & John Horner, 443 S.W.3d 627 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gail & Darrell Mansfield v. Caleb Horner & John Horner, 443 S.W.3d 627 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 15× “7 defines “punitive damages” for purposes of section 510.263 as “an award for punitive or exemplary damages or an award for aggravating circumstances.”

Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 275 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “When a jury awards punitive damages, both the trial court, which has the power of remittitur pursuant to section 510.263, and the appellate court review the award to ensure it is not an abuse of discretion.”

Kurt D. Ellison v. O'Reilly Auto. Stores, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 18× “All actions tried before a jury involving punitive damages, including tort actions based upon improper health care, shall be conducted in a bifurcated trial before the same jury if requested by any party.”

Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 13 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “Nevertheless, Doncasters submits that the trial court abused its discretion in entering the discovery sanction because it was in violation of the bifurcation procedures set forth in section 510.263 RSMo Supp.2006 and MAI 35.”

Angotti v. Celotex Corp., 812 S.W.2d 742 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 14× “Section 510.263, RSMo Supp.1990, provides that all actions tried before a jury involving punitive damages shall be conducted in a bifurcated trial before the same jury if requested by any party.”

Advantage Bldgs. & Exteriors, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 449 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “Advantage sought compensatory and punitive damages, and Mid-Continent requested a bifurcated trial, pursuant to section 510.263, RSMo. 3 Advantage claimed the $4,604,000 Alsation judgment as its compensatory damages.”

Barnett v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca France, 963 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 7× “This case was bifurcated as outlined in § 510.263, RSMo 1994, 3 to distinguish the actual and punitive damages.”

BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). · cites it 2× “• Missouri — Mo. Rev. Stat. §§510.263 (1) and (3) (1994) (mandates bifurcated proceedings, on request of any party, for jury to determine first whether defendant is liable for punitive damages, then amount of punitive damages).”

Gilliland v. Missouri Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. 2009). · cites it 4× “Gilliland’s claim for punitive damages was bifurcated pursuant to section 510.263. 1 2 As such, the jury’s verdict included only a finding of liability for punitive damages.”

Menaugh v. Resler Optometry, Inc., 799 S.W.2d 71 (Mo. 1990). · cites it 6× “In 1987, the General Assembly adopted Section 510.263, RSMo Cum.Supp.1989, which deals, among other things, with awards of punitive damages.”

Call v. Heard, 925 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. 1996). · cites it 4× “When punitive damages are awarded by a jury, both the trial court, which has the power of remittitur, § 510.263, RSMo 1994, and the appellate court review the award to ensure that it is not an abuse of discretion.”

Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. 1999). · cites it 3× “760, RSMo 1994 (stating the elements of a products liability claim); section 510.263, RSMo 1994 (stating the procedures for punitive damages claims); and section 537.”

Show all 44 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.263(1) — 2 cases

BMW of North Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). “• Missouri — Mo. Rev. Stat. §§510.263 (1) and (3) (1994) (mandates bifurcated proceedings, on request of any party, for jury to determine first whether defendant is liable for punitive damages, then amount of punitive damages).”

Smith v. Lisenbe (E.D. Mo. 2022).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.263(2) — 1 case

Smith v. Lisenbe (E.D. Mo. 2022).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.263(6) — 1 case

Moore v. Missouri-Nebraska Express, Inc., 892 S.W.2d 696 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.