Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 537
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.085 (2026)

Defenses to wrongful death action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  537.085.  Defenses to wrongful death action. — On the trial of such action to recover damages for causing death, the defendant may plead and prove as a defense any defense which the defendant would have had against the deceased in an action based upon the same act, conduct, occurrence, transaction, or circumstance which caused the death of the deceased, and which action for damages the deceased would have been entitled to bring had death not ensued.

­­--------

(L. 1955 p. 778 § 537.090, A.L. 1979 S.B. 368)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1974–2016 · leading case: Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 275 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 275 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 44× “Pursuant to section 537.085, damages may be recovered in a wrongful death action for, among other things, pecuniary losses incurred by decedent's death, including, as provided by section 537.”
Keyen Braughton, A Minor & Konnor Braughton, A Minor, By & Through Conservators, David & Michelle Braughton v. Esurance Ins. Co., 466 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Section 537.085 provides: On the trial of such action to recover damages for causing death, the defendant may plead and prove as a defense any defense which the defendant would have had against the deceased in an action based upon the same act, conduct, occurrence, transaction,…”
Hartman Ex Rel. Hartman v. Hartman, 821 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. 1991). · cites it 2× “§ 537.085, RSMo 1986. In summary, this Court abrogates the parental immunity doctrine of Baker v.”
Campbell v. Callow, 876 S.W.2d 25 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “§ 537.085, RSMo 1986.” (Emphasis added.) The unmistakable conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing language is that the abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine, which became effective on December 19, 1991, permitted the maintenance of the Armstrong wrongful death action,…”
Miller v. Smith, 921 S.W.2d 39 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “080 by providing that a defendant in a wrongful death suit may: plead and prove as a defense any defense which the defendant would have had against the deceased in an action based *45 upon the same act, conduct, occurrence, transaction, or circumstance which caused the death of…”
State Ex Rel. Sasnett v. Moorhouse, 267 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “The City also relies on section 537.085, which states that a wrongful death defendant may use any defense against the plaintiffs that could have been used against the deceased.”
Cook v. Newman, 142 S.W.3d 880 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “See also § 537.085 (In a wrongful death action, “the defendant may plead and prove as a defense any defense which the defendant would have had against the deceased in an action based upon the same act, conduct, occurrence, transaction, or circumstance which caused the death of…”
Karen Carpenter v. State Bd. of Nursing, 508 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. 2016). · cites it 2× “Carpenter, therefore, was a “prevailing party” under section 537.085(3). The Board’s Disciplinary Order Is Not a “Position” for Purposes of Section 536.”
Hewitt v. City of Kansas City, 761 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Despite prompting by the courts that the legislature define the scope of the notice requirements as it applies to wrongful death, the legislature has not addressed this issue in Chapter 82 nor in the wrongful death statute, Section 537.085, RSMo. 1986. This court pauses to note…”
Klinge v. Lutheran Med. Ctr. of St. Louis, 518 S.W.2d 157 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “while acting as an authorized, member of a hospital review, medical review, utilization review, or peer review committee functioning for the sole purpose of *163 maintaining the professional standards of those engaged in the medical profession, or for maintaining professional…”
Hays v. Royer, 384 S.W.3d 330 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). “§ 537.085. Thus, any defense that would have precluded Hays from recovering from Royer also precludes Brody Hays and Heather Hays from recovering from Royer.”
Teeter v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 891 S.W.2d 817 (Mo. 1995). “A wrongful death defendant “may plead and prove as a defense any defense which the defendant would have had against the deceased in an action based on the same [facts], and which action for damages the deceased would have been entitled to bring had death not ensued.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.085(3) — 1 case
Karen Carpenter v. State Bd. of Nursing, 508 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. 2016). “Carpenter, therefore, was a “prevailing party” under section 537.085(3). The Board’s Disciplinary Order Is Not a “Position” for Purposes of Section 536.”
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.