Missouri Injury Law Blog

In speaking with other St Louis area personal injury lawyers I have come to learn that it is not only common in my practice that injury victims sometimes try to settle cases with the auto insurance company on their own. In most cases trying to settle a Missouri car accident injury case without a lawyer is a losing proposition for you and a win win for the insurance company.

Top reasons I hear from people why they try to settle their car accident injury case on their own:

1. I just want what is fair, the insurance company should give me that because the car accident was not my fault. In a perfect world this may be true, but it is the insurance adjuster's job to give you as little money as possible to get you sign away your legal rights, also known as settling. How can you trust what they tell you, your best interest are in direct conflict of their next raise and the company's bottom line.

2. The insurance adjuster promised to pay my medical bills and give me some money on top of that!

What amount of medical bills are we talking about? The gross amount the hospital and doctors charged or the reduced insurance payment amount? The insurance comply will pay the reduced amount, but under Missouri law you are entitled to the gross amount paid as the reduced amount is oftentimes irrelevant under the Missouri collateral source rule. The status of the collateral source rule in Missouri is constantly changing especially since the 2005 "tort reform" statutes. Proper application of the collateral source rule can make the difference of 10s of thousands of dollars for your case.

Case in point: Recently a Missouri car accident victim called me and she suffered some moderate to severe injuries. The insurance company promised her they would pay her medical bills plus give her 10 thousand dollars.... wow great deal right? WRONG! Her "medical bills" as she understood them were $9,000; however this was the amount adjusted for medicare payments, the total gross amount of her bills were over $30,000. So under the great offer by the insurance company she left $21,000 plus on the table. Given her injuries we will likely settle her case for policy limits of $100,000.

3. Attorney fees will take up my recovery.

See my Missouri auto accidents page and main website and the results we have gotten for our Personal injury clients. We get results based on knowledge and experience. I know what your case is worth. As in the example above, would you rather have 100% of $10,000 of 2/3rds of $100,000?

Continue reading "I Was Injured in a Missouri Car Accident, Why Do I Need to Hire a Personal Injury Lawyer?" »

Under Missouri dram shop statute, the victims of Missouri personal injury or the family of the Missouri wrongful death victim caused by an intoxicated or drunk driver may have a cause of action against the establishment that served the Missouri drunk driver that caused a car crash or hits a pedestrian.

Missouri Statute § 537.053, Sale of alcoholic beverage may be proximate cause of personal injuries or death

... a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.

How do you prove by "clear and convincing" evidence that the bartender knew or should have known the drunk driver was "visibly intoxicated"? See St Louis Injury Attorney Article: ... Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated

However, in a Missouri dram shop lawsuit, proving "visible intoxication" is more difficult than simply showing the driver was legally intoxicated. For example, under the above dram shop statute, Missouri Statute § 537.503, blood alcohol content is simple relevant to proving a person was visibly intoxicated, but does not prove it. So what else, clearly a St Louis DWI personal injury lawyer would hire a toxicologist to testify, but what about testimony from someone else at the bar that served the at fault driver? the bartender? they obviously are not going to admit they served a visibly intoxicated, so you are left with tracking down other patrons at the bar, which is hard enough, much less finding one that remembers the drunk driver who caused a car accident and that they were visibly intoxicated.

So is an eye witness required? Recently a Missouri trial court ruled through summary judgment that eye witness testimony is required to prove that the Missouri drunk driver who caused a car accident was visibly intoxicated at a bar in order to be able to hold that establishment liable under Missouri's dram shop law. This issue is currently up on appeal and for an excellent analysis of the Missouri dram shop law and its application see: Amicus Brief - Missouri Dram Shop Law Appeal regarding Proof of Visible Intoxication

Continue reading "Drunk Driving Accident Lawsuits in Missouri - Making a Negligence Claim Against the Bar that Over-Served the Missouri Drunk Driver " »

Missouri injury attorneys are often retained by victims of personal injury resulting from the negligence of a landlord, whether it is a slip and fall, Missouri premise liability, or a failure to protect from 3rd party criminal conduct, assuming the duty has been established.

One such case my St Louis personal injury law firm is handling is a St Louis premise liability action against an apartment complex for negligent security. In this particular case, the common area security doors were defective and in serious disrepair allowing two men to enter the common area then quickly and easily kick through the flimsy inner door of an apartment and sexually assault the female resident. I personally inspected the door a few days after the assault and several other "security doors" in the complex and most of them were opened without using the key and with a slight push. For further information on this sexual assault and negligent security apartment lawsuit see the link above.

As in many St Louis Missouri apartment complex personal injury cases, the landlord has a contract clause in the lease stating they are not responsible for any negligent acts.

There are several personal injury court opinions from Missouri courts holding, as a matter of law, that such oftentimes these types of negligence release clauses are insufficient to bar an injury victim's claim for negligence. Generally, such clauses are disfavored and strictly construed against the party attempting to enforce it. Especially in the landlord tenant relationship because of the disparity of bargaining power, often referred to as a contract of adhesion.

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that "the exculpatory language must effectively notify a party that he or she is releasing the other party from claims arising from the other party's own negligence." Alack v. Vic Tanny International of Missouri, 923 S.W.2d 330, 337 (Mo 1996).

The Alack decision also makes it clear that such waivers of negligence also fail as a matter of law when applied to Missouri punitive damage claims. In negligence cases, punitive damages are an issue "if, at the time of the negligent act, the defendant 'knew or had reason to know that there was a high degree of probability that the action would result in injury" and the defendant showed "conscious disregard for the safety of others."

Continue reading "Missouri Waiver of Personal Injury From Future Negligence Clauses in Apartment Lease Contracts - Are they Enforceable?" »

Just about every personal injury case in Missouri, Illinois, or anywhere else, requires the use of experts. Most commonly, experts in a Missouri car accident injury claim are the treating health care providers. From the emergency room and ER doctors, to the physical therapists and the physicians and surgeons that have treated the personal injury victim. A good St Louis personal injury lawyer knows how to use these treating providers to maximize their injured client's recovery.

In many other cases not only are the treating heath care providers necessary, but also experts to prove liability are required to litigate a successful personal injury case in Missouri. They can be engineers for Missouri product liability injury lawsuits, surgeons and medical doctors for Missouri medical malpractice claims (in fact expert affidavits are required in Missouri med mal lawsuits just to file one - See Certificate of Merit to File Missouri Medical Malpractice Case) , toxicologists if you have a lawyer to sue a Missouri drunk driver and need an expert to help prove the negligent driver was drunk, assuming this was not already established by the police.

Proper use of experts in personal injury depositions or injury trials requires knowledge of how to use that expert to best benefit the injured party. For example, in a Missouri personal injury case evidence must be submitted in proper form for the jury to be able to rely on it, however, experts are allowed to rely on documents, books, or other sources in coming up with and verifying their opinion even though that document or source is not admissible as evidence.

"Evidence an expert relies on in forming his or her opinion need not be independently admissible."

"Expert can rely on hearsay information provided that those sources are not offered as independent substantive evidence, but rather serve only as a background for expert's opinion. V.A.M.S. § 490.065."

Continue reading "Use of Expert Witnesses by Missouri Injury Attorneys to successfully pursue Missouri Injury Claims and Lawsuits" »

To many victims of Missouri personal injury accidents, the cause is obvious and the medical treatment required seems obvious as well. However, at trial even these seemingly assumed things must be proven by qualified experts. Common example, a Missouri car crash resulting in severe injuries wherein the fault of one driver is clear. Beyond proving the other driver was liable, at trial, the Missouri injury lawyer for the victim must prove with competent evidence that the injured client's injuries were caused from the collision and that the medical treatment received was reasonable and necessary to treat those injuries. Moreover, and more a subject of different articles on this blog, the injured party must prove the amount of medical bills were reasonable and necessary. See Missouri Personal Injury Law - Medical Damages Amount of Bills Paid or Amount Charged

In some cases where the medical treatment necessitated was immediate, the issue of causation is presumed under the Sudden Onset Rule: Under this Missouri personal injury rule, causation may be inferred by the jury without medical testimony. Tucker v. Wibbenmeyer, 901 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). Sudden onset rule applies when obvious symptoms of an injury follows immediately after an accident without delay or a very short delay. Examples of where the sudden onset rule can be used in lieu of medical testimony, a person involved in a Missouri car accident immediately sustains a broken bone or open wound.

In most cases, especially where the injuries and symptoms require months and months of medical treatment, it is wise, if not legally required, to have at least one of the medical providers testify as to the necessity of the medical treatment received and that the injuries were all caused from the accident. Also, it is usually best to depose the most qualified doctor that treated the injured victim or the doctor that performed the last treatment of them. This is because a doctor can rely on the other medical records as a history and opine as the the necessity of that treatment - i.e. a surgeon and testify that the treatment an injured party received in the ER and that it was reasonable and necessary, also they can rely on those ER records as part of their diagnosis of the victim.

This will ensure that all of the Plaintiff's medical treatment is admitted into evidence and considered by a jury.

Continue reading "Trial Evidence in Missouri Personal Injury Cases: Medical Experts to Prove Personal Injury, Extent of Injury, Necessary Treatement and Causation " »

A former patient of Doctor Chao, the Chargers' team doctor, received a $2.2 million dollar settlement in a medical malpractice settlement after filing a medical negligence lawsuit against the doctor for negligently lacerating her femoral artery, vein and nerve during a routine hip surgery.

The personal injury victim and claimant, is now required to take several different types of medications daily to deal with ongoing and severe chronic pain, additionally, she walks with a limp. The patient and her husband received personal injury settlements for economic and non-economic damages. The patient's husband received a portion for loss of consortium, while the patient, herself, received awards for pain and suffering, future life care and loss of income.

Currently, our St Louis personal injury law firm, is pursuing a case with similar injuries against a negligent St Louis area doctor for an improperly performed nerve root block injection, commonly referred to as a pain injection. See Missouri Medical Negligence - Paralysis from Pain Injection

The negligent surgeon, mentioned at the beginning of this article, Chao has been sued a total of 20 times by former patients alleging personal injury, negligence, and fraud along with other medical malpractice claims. Chao was also under investigation for writing 108 prescriptions listing himself as the patient. He denied such claims and said they were nothing more than clerical errors. Chao attained the position of Charger's doctor when the former doctor, Gary Losse, was fired due to an alleged addiction to narcotics - narcotics that Chao had been issued a $1,000 citation for unlawfully prescribing to Losse.

In a previous blog we discussed Missouri medical negligence law regarding impeachment. To be able to admit as evidence the long list of legal problems Dr. Chao has and continues to face and impeach him as credible, Missouri personal injury attorneys are allowed on cross-examination to ask "questions about any specific incidents of misconduct....that might tend to cast doubt on his credibility, veracity, or truthfulness". Also, attorneys are allowed to ask a witness or the defendant (or other witness) if they have heard of any "convictions, arrests, rumors or accusations of specific misconduct... However, such specific instances may not be proven by extrinsic evidence". Chao's prior drinking and driving arrests and complaints filed by the medical board regarding his abuse of alcohol and unprofessional conduct should also be admissible for impeachment.

San Diego Chargers Doctor Settles for 2.2 Million

Continue reading "Negligent Surgeon Settles for $2.2 Million - Doctor had extensive Past Issues to Allow Attacks on his Credibility at Trial" »

A recent verdict in a DUI accident was handed down, the jury found the driver grossly negligent and awarded some punitive damages, but the amounts were curiously low, especially for a drunk driving accident case. Jury Finds Band Leader Grossly Negligent, but Slaps Him on Wrists The jury awarded less then $100,000 to the injured passenger who sustained about $40,000 in past medical bills. Additionally, only $20,000 in punitive damages from the DUI injury accident.

As a St Louis DWI car accident and injury lawyer, I find this amount to be insufficient in light of the facts; I believe the jurors in the above case went easy on the driver because he is a local celebrity and he was severely injured in the accident suffering a brain injury requiring multiple surgeries. Perhaps the jury believed his injuries were punishment enough.

We have handled Missouri and Illinois drinking and driving injury accidents with less in medical bills but received fro more in compensation or our clients:

DUI Injury Lawyer - Illinois drunk driving accident injury case settles for policy limits

Illinois DUI Accident and Brain Injury Lawsuit - Settles for $575,000

St Louis Missouri DWI Accident Lawyer gets Judgment for 2.3 MILLION

Illinois DUI Accident Injury Claim, Lawsuit settles few Weeks before Trial for Policy Limits

Continue reading "DWI Bus Accident Injury Lawsuit....verdict insufficient? " »

As a bicyclist myself and a St Louis Missouri bike accident injury lawyer, I have handled dozens of bike injury cases and spoke with many cyclists I ride with about being hit by cars and who were lucky enough not to be thrown off their bike or injured. See St Louis bike injury lawyer discusses common causes of bike accidents and injury

Most commonly, personal injury to bike riders being hit by cars is the result of driver inattention and negligence. A close second however, is bike riders being struck in the summer evenings by drunk drivers. See Missouri bike rider struck by drunk driver and suffers extensive personal injury

In the above mentioned St Louis drunk driving bike accident, the police did an excellent job investigating the accident and making sure they tested the driver for intoxication. Police investigation of a potential Missouri drunk driving accident is critical to a personal injury lawsuit because if the police do not investigate immediately it is almost impossible to later prove the driver was intoxicated; unless they admit it (good luck!) or there is credible observation and evidence from a witness proving intoxication. See Missouri Personal Injury Trial Evidence - Proving Driver was drunk with Lay Witness Testimony

Fortunately, a distant third, are bike accidents and injuries intentionally caused by the driver, these types of situations have recently gotten some national attention as some prosecutors and law enforcement are starting to investigate these cases more thoroughly and look into to prosecution. See the following:

Bike Accident and Injury Intentionally Caused by Doctor?

Bike Accident and Injury Caused by Road Rage

Also see Missouri Injury Law Blog - Missouri Bicycle Accident and Injury Cases

On behalf of a decedent's family we have filed a Missouri medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuit against a St Louis bariatric surgeon, his resident that performed the surgery, and the St Louis hospital.

Since the 2005 Missouri tort reform bill passed the defense always pleads multiple affirmative defenses relying on several provisions of the tort reform bill. The bill has never been squarely challenged on constitutional grounds as the issue has not become ripe for the Missouri Supreme Court to hear as no case has been appealed to the Supreme Court and needed to be resolved on the constitutional grounds. The closest it has come was in March of 2010, the Klotz case (See Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog Article: Supreme Court Hears Constitutionality of Missouri Damage Caps) was heard by the Supreme Court, however the case was resolved on issues of retroactive application of tort reform, therefore the constitutional issues were not addressed in the opinion. See Missouri Medical Malpractice Awards Constitutional?

In order to try and get this issue to the Supreme Court sooner we have taken the initiative to file a Motion To Strike the Affirmative Defenses relying on tort reform provisions, specifically damage caps. See Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses based on Missouri's 2005 "Tort Reform" Laws Being Unconstitutional

As stated in our Missouri wrongful death lawsuit's Motion to Strike, the Supreme Court Judges have indicated that they would rule the 2005 law unconstitutional, at least in part, by stating:

" write separately to emphasize that the caps on non-economic damages imposed by section 538.210 also violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under article I, section 2 of the Missouri Constitution."

"[T]he legislation, section 538.210, retains the common law action but displaces the finding of the juries with a legislated limitation on damages. [...] This legislated interference impairs the right of trial by jury "as heretofore enjoyed." As such, the right to trial by jury does not "remain inviolate." It is, in fact, violated."

Medical Malpractice Law: Illinois Strikes Down Damage Caps as Unconstitutional

Continue reading "Personal Injury Lawyers File a Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Missouri Medical Malpractice Lawsuit" »

A recent article, link below, reported a fairly common personal injury lawsuit, an injury caused from a broken or defective chair (Missouri Broken Chair Lawsuit - Sample Petition). In the article below, an injured woman is suing a local store after sustaining a fall when a chair collapsed and caused her serious personal injury. She is alleging negligence against the store and is seeking compensatory damages for her injuries.

As a St Louis Missouri Personal Injury Attorney we make sure we name all responsible and negligent parties and all potential causes of action. In my opinion, the injury lawyer in the article cited below should sue for more than just negligence of the store; but also for strict product liability and negligence against the chair manufacturer as well as a res ipsa claim against the store. (See: Missouri Personal Injury and "Res Ipsa" Claims)

This is similar to a Missouri personal injury – premises liability case our St Louis injury law firm is currently handling involving a broken chair and serious injury to our client's back, hip, and pelvis.

While on a business trip to Kansas City MO, the injured client was attending a seminar at an airport hotel. While sitting down at a table to begin the meeting, the metal chair he sat on immediately collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain severe injury to his hip, pelvis, and back. Moreover, the victim was of below average weight at 160 pounds. See CDC Average Weight Statistics

Our Missouri personal injury attorneys filed a lawsuit against the hotel for negligent maintenance, storage, and inspection. See Our Recent Missouri premise Liability Cases. Additionally, we are making strict product liability claims and negligence claims against the chair manufacturer.

Article: Broken chair lawsuit

A wrongful death lawyer has filed a wrongful death lawsuit and negligent road design lawsuit on behalf of the family of a deceased Pennsylvania teen. The wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a drunk driving accident, alleges negligent design and maintenance of the road and that it contributed, not the sole cause, of her death. This particular road had a 55 mph speed limit and a 4-inch drop-off between the road and the shoulder not to mention the drop-off is located on a curve in the road.

The wrongful death lawsuit specifically alleges that the department of transportation did not level the road properly when they upgraded that section after two other teens were killed in car accidents at this same location. The prior accidents are crucial to the negligence claim as the dept of transportation was clearly on notice of the defect and should have corrected it.

On top of the negligent road design, the driver was intoxicated and that clearly contributed to the wrongful death car accident as well. Also, the deceased teen was not wearing her seat-belt at the time; however, under the law of most sates, and certainly in Missouri, evidence of the victim not wearing their seat belt is generally not admissible into evidence at a wrongful death or car accident injury trial. The driver allegedly attempted the curve in the road at this high speed, dropped off the road onto the shoulder, over-corrected and collided into an elderly couple in an oncoming car before his truck was stopped by a guardrail.

The Dept. of Transportation has since dropped the speed limit to 50 mph on this road, paved the shoulders, and added guardrails, reflectors, and rumble strips. All of these precautions will help to prevent such sad and tragic accidents in the future.

Article: Wrongful Death Lawsuit against Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

Continue reading "Wrongful Death and Drunk Driving Car Accident Lawsuit combined with Negligent Road Design" »

When consulting with an employee injured at work and discussing a potential Missouri workers comp claim, many work related injury victims are concerned that filing a work comp claim could jeopardize their employment. If you are terminated or fired for filing a work comp claim that is called retaliatory termination or discharge and it is against the law. More importantly, work injury victims need to get a Missouri work comp lawyer involved soon so they know their rights and obligations to make sure they maximize their benefits and avoid bad situations with their employer over the claim. It is very rare that termination over a work comp claim actually occurs.

Another important issue to address early on is if another party, outside of the employer, is at fault for the injury claim, for example a negligent driver crashes into you while on a work related errand, in this case, and many others, Missouri law allows for a “third party lawsuit”. This permits the injured employee from not only receiving Missouri or Illinois work comp benefits, which oftentimes are not enough to fully compensate for severe personal injuries, but also having the benefits of common law of negligence and making a claim against the individual or entity responsible for your injures outside of the work comp court.

See 3rd Party and Work Comp Settlement by St Louis Injury Lawyer Ben Sansone for $500,000

Lastly, recent court ruling in Missouri have opened up a pathway through a negligent coworker to get to more insurance coverage of the employer. See Missouri Workers' Compensation Law - Coworker Liability

Continue reading "Missouri Work Comp Lawyer discussing Work Comp Claim and 3rd Party Liability Issues" »

As a St Louis injury lawyer I am always thinking of every issue that the insurance lawyer may try and use against my client at trial, no matter how trivial. Currently, we are handling a Missouri serious injury case from a broken back resulting from a fall after a chair at a hotel broke when an average weight male sat on it.

Early on in the case the insurance company inquired as to the injured client's prior marriage history; in this case my client has three prior marriages. This may seem harmless and a collateral issue on its face but it must be dealt with early on with objections. Why? because if this issue, which has nothing to do with the Missouri spinal cord injury case, may be injected into trial in front of the jury which may cause some jurors to look disfavorably upon my spinal injury client. This is important because you never know what beliefs about marriage and divorce jurors may have and may hold against a witness who has been divorced several times before.

The Missouri Supreme Court addressed this exact issue after the appeal of a St Louis car accident lawsuit wherein the defense read into evidence doctor notes discussing the Plaintiff's marital history. The notes indicated several marriages and the court ruled that was improper. See Johnson v. Sandweg, 378 SW 2d 454 (MO 1964) stating:

"Thus, by the admission and reading into evidence of the quoted portions of the Doctor's notes, was brought into the trial of the case, and made "very pertinent" the implication that plaintiff, thrice married and twice divorced, was irresponsible in marital and parental relationships, and subjected plaintiff to the scorn of those jurors who may have looked askance upon divorce and remarriage. So we say we think the admission into evidence of the quoted notes was prejudicially erroneous in this case."

Continue reading "Issues of Evidene in Missouri Personal Injury Cases: Discussing the Injury Victim's Prior Marriages" »

As a St Louis personal injury law firm handling car accident and other types of injury cases involving intoxicated or drugged individuals who caused the accident or injury, proving intoxication is critical to maximizing value of my clients' cases.

In many cases the at fault driver that caused the truck accident and injury is charged with DWI or other intoxicated related offense and the police officer's investigation can often be piggybacked by injury lawyers to show intoxication. However, not all cases are properly investigated by police officers or investigated for intoxication at all.

What other evidence is there to show intoxication? Because I guarantee the at fault driver will not admit it, especially after their insurance company and their lawyers have gotten to them.

One example is a Crawford county Missouri drunk driving head injury case we are currently handling. My client was thrown from a vehicle as a result of the driver's erratic driving in a resort area and in a private parking area and driveway. The driver stopped and witnesses called the police, however, prior to the police arriving the driver hid and was never interviewed by the police. So in this case we need to use the lay witnesses to prove intoxication. Luckily a security guard witnessed the incident, observed the driver after she exited the vehicle, and called the police.

Under Missouri law a defendant may be proven to be intoxicated by any witnesses who had a reasonable opportunity to observe him or her. State v McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622 (Mo Ct App 1994)

Whether a defendant is intoxicated may be proven by any witness who had a reasonable opportunity to observe him. State v. McCarty, 875 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo. App.1994); State v. Corum, 821 S.W.2d 890, 891 (Mo.App.1992).

[I]ntoxication is a "`physical condition usually evidenced by unsteadiness on the feet, slurring of speech, lack of body coordination and an impairment of motor reflexes.'" [State v. Ruark, 720 S.W.2d 453 (Mo.App.1986) ] at 454 (quoting State v. Blumer, 546 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Mo.App. 1977)).

Lay witnesses need to convey factors such as opportunity to observe the defendant, knowledge of drinking earlier in the day, balance, motor skills, bloodshot eyes, erratic driving, smell of alcohol, etc... Granted it is always better to have a trained police officer than a lay witness, but the lay witnesses testimony is admissible for the jury to then decide.

Continue reading "Evidence in Missouri Drunk Driving Car Accident Injury Case: Proving the Other Driver was Intoxicated" »

When can prior criminal history be used in a Missouri personal injury trial? As a St Louis injury lawyer handling drunk driving accident injury cases, this often comes up as sometimes not only is the driver intoxicated but sometimes my own client has a criminal history. How does that affect the St Louis car accident or other injury case at trial?

Under Missouri Statute § 491.050

"Any person who has been convicted of a crime is, notwithstanding, a competent witness; however, any prior criminal convictions may be proved to affect his credibility in a civil or criminal case[.]"

So if a witness has been convicted of a crime, that can be used to impeach them and attack their credibility during a St Louis personal injury lawsuit trial. However, what if they plead guilty but did not get convicted and instead received probation, also known as an SIS (Suspended Imposition of Sentence) in Missouri? Two things need to be considered:

(1) If the only purpose is for impeachment (attacking their credibility) then no, an SIS is not admissible.

This issue was addressed in State v. Hansel, 629 SW 2d 509 (MO Ct App ED 1981). For purposes of § 491.050 a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) is not a conviction because sentence has not been pronounced or imposed.

(2) But what if the negligent driver received an SIS on a charge related to the accident? OR an SIS for any charge related to liability?

I have handled multiple Missouri and Illinois personal injury cases resulting from a drunk driver, and oftentimes in these cases that person is charged as a result of the accident and it is their first offense. In Missouri most first time offenders are eligible for an SIS to avoid a conviction; so is the SIS admissible to prove they were drunk at the time of the Missouri car accident?

YES, because when someone gets an SIS they have to plead guilty which is an admission of guilt. So if they plead guilty to DWI that resulted in an accident then a good personal injury attorney knows they have to admit that they admitted they were guilty when asked. So the SIS or probation is not admitted into evidence, but the admission of guilt is.

Continue reading "Trial Evidence in Missouri Personal Injury Lawsuits - Can a Personal Injury Lawyer Admit into Evidence an SIS (Suspended Imposition of Sentence - probation in lieu of a conviction)" »