Missouri Injury Law Blog

My Missouri personal injury client, Kathy, is a self made small business owner who was injured as the result of a dangerous condition on the premises of Lowe's back in July 2007. She incurred personal injury to her knee and incurred $15,000 in medical bills as a result of Lowe's negligence under Missouri injury law. Our Missouri personal injury law experience and expertise helped secure a $60,000 settlement for Kathy, 4 times the amount of her medical bills.

Kathy was what Missouri personal injury attorneys call a "business invitee" on Lowe's’ premises, thus raising the standard of care as the premises is open to the public for business purposes. Kathy was caused to slip and fall due to an unreasonably dangerous condition on Lowe's’ property, specifically, standing water on the concrete floor. Moreover, not only was there standing water but the Missouri injury liability was aggravated because there was organic soot and plant food in the water, making the concrete excessively slick as compared to just water on concrete. Additionally, this condition was located across the entrance to the nursery section at Lowe's, an obvious high foot traffic area.

As you can see in the picture, the saw cut between the Lowe’s entry and exit gate is full of a black substance, that is organic grunge; additionally, the water between the gates has this same organic material under it as this is drain off from the plants being watered, thus carrying dissolved plant food and minerals that make the concrete floor incredibly slick.

Also, you can see there is a crack in the concrete which creates about a ½ inch lip, Kathy slid on the water (you can see several slip marks in the picture) full of the organic material and then she hit the lip causing her knee to twist and her resultant fall and injuries. Lastly, there were no warning cones present, where they should have been, instead they were off to the side behind a counter.

The premise was within the exclusive control of Lowe's and it was held open to the public for business invitee access. Therefore, Lowe's owed Kathy the highest degree of care under Missouri personal injury law to keep the premises in a safe condition and to regularly inspect it to guarantee invitee safety.

Additional info on Missouri Premise Liability Law as written by a Missouri personal injury lawyer.

See article discussing potential claims or lawsuits arising from St Louis Missouri premise liability resulting from Arch tram cable snapping. St Louis Countian Article 8/11/2008 by Kelly Wiese - Article regarding St Louis Personal Injury Lawsuits and analysis by attorney Ben Sansone.

"Last summer, as tourists were being carried up to see the view from atop the Gateway Arch, a cable snapped in the tram, knocking out power and trapping visitors for a few hours.

With a new report out blaming the National Park Service and its contractors for the cable problem, some are watching to see if litigation starts popping up.

A search of court records in both St. Louis Circuit Court and the federal Eastern District of Missouri court did not reveal any lawsuits filed so far against either the National Park Service, as the Arch grounds are a national park, or Metro, which operates the trams. The park's deputy superintendent, Frank Mares, also said it has not been sued over the cable break.

Personal injury lawyer Benjamin Sansone of St. Louis said he wasn't aware of any lawsuits filed over the accident at this point, but noted the report might be just the ticket for a lawyer with a borderline case.

"Now you've got this report from a third party saying somebody did something wrong: You just made my job a lot easier," he said.

Such a case likely would be filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, he said. The good news there for plaintiff lawyers is the statute of limitations is two years, so people involved in the July 2007 incident still have time. Sansone also said it does not appear the park service would be protected by sovereign immunity if a lawyer could prove some negligence.

"The cable broke. That tells me someone did something wrong," he said.

Under the tort claims act, a person would first file a claim with the federal agency, which has six months to investigate and either deny or settle the claim. After that, a plaintiff can bring suit in federal court.

"There's a case there. Now the whole issue is whether or not the damages justify the pursuit of that," he said.

Sansone said in a case like this, without much physical injury, it could be hard to bring a claim for emotional distress. He said he would not accept the case if a potential client came to him without physical harm but claiming emotional distress and nightmares from the event. But, he said, other lawyers certainly could try.

And more than the people stuck inside the Arch could have reason to seek to recoup something.

Metro, which runs the trams, is looking at its options to recoup lost revenue from the eight-month period when one of the two trams was shut down for repairs. Justin Struttmann, director of operations at the Arch for Metro, said the agency was waiting for the report to be complete to start figuring its claims.

"We are pursuing our options with our insurance company for our business interruption claim," he said.

According to the Gateway Arch Web site, about 1 million visitors ride to the top in a typical year. Last year it was less than 800,000 because of the closing, park officials said. Tram tickets for adults are $10 apiece; children are $3 to $7.

"We're still in the early stages of it since we just recently got this report," he said, adding that Metro officials are working to estimate their revenue losses and costs incurred."

Often Missouri auto injury cases result from the negligence of an uninsured motorist. Under Missouri injury law, an uninsured motorist is exactly that, a driver with no insurance, however, an uninsured motorist is also an unidentified driver or vehicle; a vehicle that causes or contributed to the cause of a Missouri auto crash and injury but keeps on driving and remains unidentified.

Missouri uninsured motorist claims raise an abundance of issues unique to uninsured motorist claims. As a Missouri personal injury lawyer, I routinely handling Missouri and Illinois auto crash cases, I see my fair share of uninsured motorist cases. Many issues that arise are set-off, stacking, and anti stacking clauses. Uninsured motorist coverage applies to the person, not the vehicle. Therefore, if you are injured by an uninsured motorist in Missouri, and your household has 3 cars all with 25,000 UM coverage, then there is potentially $75,000 in coverage, as the auto insurance policies "stack".

Having an experienced Missouri personal injury lawyer when uninsured motorist is an issue is very important. In my own experience many insurance adjusters will claim set off or anti-stacking (not allowing coverage from multiple policies) to deny Missouri auto accident uninsured motorist coverage, often citing clauses from the insurance policy. However, under Missouri injury law, anti-stacking for Uninsured motorist coverage is against public policy and any insurance policy clause attempting to prevent stacking is void and unenforceable in Missouri.

Currently, I am dealing with a St Louis Missouri motorcycle accident wherein the UM claim is complicated, the injured cyclist was caused to crash as the result of two vehicles, one stopped and was identified the other kept driving. Therefore, not only is the one driver's liability policy in play, but my client's Missouri uninsured motorist coverage for every policy in his household is in play. In this case he had 2 policies with uninsured motorist coverage, his motorcycle policy allowing $25,000 in UM coverage and his auto policy with $100,000 in UM coverage, so those two policies are stacked allowing for an additional $125,000 in recovery over and above the other driver's liability policy.

Recent law dealing with Uninsured Motorist Claims in Missouri:

Foster child not "relative" for purposes of Missouri uninsured motorist claim, therefore no stacking of other policies in household. Kertz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 236 S.W.3d 39 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007).
Missouri auto personal injury victim was a foster child and brought action against insurer seeking to stack UM of his foster parent's coverage as he was a member of the household. The court ruled that a foster child was not a "named insured" and could not stack UM coverage. Missouri law requiring stacking only for "named insured" and "relatives" or "spouse" of the primary policy holder. An "occupancy insured", being a non relative living in the same household, is not entitled to stack UM coverages. The foster child was not related to or legally adopted by the insured, therefore the foster child constituted only an "occupancy insured", and no stacking.

Williams v. Silvola, 234 S.W.3d 396 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007). Motor vehicle collision and personal injury case in Missouri. The insured lived in Kansas and owned seven cars all insured by Farmers. The cars were all registered and insured in Kansas. Missouri injury law requires stacking of UM coverage; however Kansas prohibits stacking, so which applies? The court "stacked" the limits of all seven policies because the accident and injury took place in Missouri.

Anti Stacking of UM Policies Against Missouri Law:

Missouri public policy prohibits anti-stacking clauses for multiple uninsured motorist coverages. Cameron Mutual v. Madden, 533 S.W.2d 538 (Mo. banc 1976). An insured can stack multiple policies from several different vehicles. Gallaway v. Farmers Insurance Company, 523 S.W.2d 339 (Mo. App. 1975).