Kenney v. Myers

674 S.W.3d 139

Marlayna KENNEY, Respondent,

v.Kailey K. MYERS, Appellant.

WD 85014

C/w WD 85111

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: June 27, 2023

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 25, 2023

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied September 26, 2023

Lauren Alyssa Dollar, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Susan Ford Robertson, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Before Division Three: Janet Sutton, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge, and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Kailey K. Myers ("Myers") appeals from the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of Marlayna Kenney ("Kenney") and Jayden Morgan ("Morgan") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") on their wrongful death and personal injury claims stemming from a motor vehicle accident. Myers argues that because she admitted fault for the accident, the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence on the issue of her liability. Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background¹

In the early morning hours of August 25, 2019, Myers was driving a vehicle westbound on Interstate 70 in Jackson County, Missouri. Hailey Jeffries ("Jeffries") and Morgan, both minors, were passengers in the vehicle. Myers lost control of the vehicle, and the vehicle left the interstate and overturned. Jeffries was pronounced dead at the scene of the accident and Morgan sustained physical injuries requiring substantial medical treatment.

On May 15, 2020, Kenney, Jeffries’ mother, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Myers for Jeffries’ death. In paragraph eleven, Kenney alleged that Myers failed to exercise the highest degree of care in at least one of the following ways: failing to keep a careful lookout; driving too fast for conditions; operating the vehicle while distracted; operating the vehicle in an impaired manner; operating the vehicle while texting or utilizing her cell phone; failing to slow down, brake, or avoid a collision; and failing to keep control of the vehicle. Morgan intervened and brought claims against Myers for his personal injuries, alleging that Myers failed to exercise the highest degree of care in the same ways identified in Kenney's petition.

On November 5, 2020, Myers filed answers to Plaintiffs’ petitions, denying "negligence, fault, failure to operate the vehicle in a careful, prudent and lawful manner, and [ ] failure to exercise the highest degree of care in the operation of the vehicle." She also denied the specific allegations of negligence alleged in paragraph eleven of both petitions.

The case was set for jury trial on October 4, 2021. On September 10, 2021, Myers filed amended answers to Plaintiffs’ petitions ("Amended Answers"). In response to Plaintiffs’ specific allegations of Myers’ failure to exercise the highest degree of care in paragraph eleven, Myers stated, "[Myers] admits only that she was at fault in causing the accident." The parties filed a stipulation on September 29, 2021, which included the following, inter alia : (1) "Defendant has admitted fault for the accident, while reserving all defenses to the nature and extent of damages claimed by [Plaintiffs];" (2) Plaintiffs "waived and dismiss their claims for aggravated circumstances and punitive damages;" and (3) the case would be tried by the bench.

The trial court heard arguments on the parties’ motions in limine on October 1. Relevant to this case, Myers moved to exclude argument or evidence concerning the causation of the accident because she had filed Amended Answers admitting fault for the accident and there was therefore "no liability issue for the court to decide." Myers claimed that there had not been any evidence establishing why the car left the road, but even if such evidence did surface, the cause of the accident was not relevant to the issues or facts in dispute. Plaintiffs argued that that liability evidence remained relevant despite Myers's general admission to fault on the issue of the nature and extent of their damages. The trial court denied Myers’ motion in limine. Myers’ counsel made further argument on the record: "Just to say, respectfully, we discussed and presented arguments off the record. [Myers] maintains [her] objection to liability evidence, and does not consent to a trial on liability."

At trial, Myers objected to the admission of the following exhibits on the grounds that they included testimony and evidence concerning liability which she argued was "not at issue [and] would be irrelevant to the case": (1) Exhibit 12, the Missouri Driver's manual; (2) Exhibits 27 and 29, the transcript and video of Myers’ deposition, which included questioning on the requirements of her intermediate driver's license restrictions, the presence of three teenage passengers in her vehicle who were not wearing their seatbelts, the use of her phone while driving, and speeding; (3) Exhibits 30 and 31, the transcript and audio statement of Myers’ interview with the Kansas City Police Department which included questioning as to Myers’ actions on the evening of the accident, whether she was speeding, and the presence, consumption, and possession of drugs and alcohol; (4) Exhibits 32 and 33, the transcript and videotape deposition of an accident reconstructionist who testified about Myers’ intermediate driver's license restrictions, a diagnostic data device on the car, and his conclusion of how the accident happened; (5) Exhibits 34 and 35, the transcript and videotape deposition of a witness to the accident who testified about Myers’ driving during the rollover accident; (6) Exhibit 36, subpoenaed Sprint driving data for Myers’ vehicle from August 24 to 25, 2019; (7) Exhibit 37, subpoenaed Sprint driving data for Myers’ vehicle from August 23 to 25, 2019; (8) Exhibits 40 and 41, transcript and videotape deposition of Kyndra Carpenter, who was the third passenger in the vehicle and who testified about Myers’ conduct on the night of the accident and whether she was using her phone while driving; and (9) Exhibit 42, the written interview and audio recording of Kyndra Carpenter's interview with police (collectively, "liability evidence"). The trial court overruled Myers’ objections and admitted the exhibits.

During closing arguments, Kenney requested the trial court award her between $10,000,000 and $12,000,000 and Morgan requested the trial court award him $2,000,000. On October 21, 2021, the trial court entered its Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, awarding Kenney $10,000,000 for Jeffries’ death and awarding $397,000 for Morgan's injuries.

Myers appeals.

Standard of Review

The trial court "is granted considerable discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude evidence" and its ruling will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Harned v. Spurlock , 658 S.W.3d 562, 577 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Rhoden v. Mo. Delta Med. Ctr. , 621 S.W.3d 469, 483 (Mo. banc 2021) ). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling "is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration." Id. at 571 (quoting Ross v. Jeschke Ag Serv., LLC , 552 S.W.3d 719, 724 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) ). "Even if we find an abuse of discretion, we will reverse only if the prejudice resulting from the improper admission of evidence is outcome-determinative." Williams v. City of Kansas City , 641 S.W.3d 302, 330 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting Ostermeier v. Prime Props. Invs. Inc. , 589 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) ).

Analysis

Myers raises a single point on appeal, which asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the liability evidence because "Myers clearly, unequivocally, and without qualification admitted fault in her answers, deposition, and at trial, and the parties stipulated to the same, the evidence was not legally or logically relevant, and its admission prejudiced Myers." Myers's point on appeal takes an all or nothing approach by arguing that all of the trial exhibits to which a relevancy objection was registered should have been excluded.

"The general rule in Missouri as to a judicial admission was stated in Ruppel v. Clayes , 72 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Mo. Ct. App. 1934) : ‘[a] party is not required to accept a judicial admission of his adversary, but may insist on proving the fact.’ " Cogdill v. Flanagan ex rel. Larson , 410 S.W.3d 714, 722 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013). A party bearing the burden of proof is not bound to a party's admission but may instead "elect to present evidence to prove the issue at jury trial." Id. (quoting Ingram v. Rinehart , 108 S.W.3d 783, 792 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) ). Myers acknowledges that the general rule is still followed in Missouri, but she argues that she "clearly, unequivocally, and without qualification" admitted she was at fault in causing the accident, and that Missouri courts recognize that "there may be circumstances when an unequivocal and full admission of liability may leave only the issue of damages for a jury, but such admission must be clear." Id. (emphasis in original) (citing Ruppel , 72 S.W.2d at 835 ).

However, we do not find that Myers made an unequivocal and full admission of liability. In Franklin v. Byers , 706 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Mo. App. W.D. 1986), this Court emphasized the importance of the assertion of liability in the plaintiff's pleadings when a defendant purports to admit liability. In Franklin , the defendant was intoxicated when he rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle. Id. The plaintiff sued and "originally alleged five grounds of negligence of defendant in separate lettered paragraphs": failure to keep a lookout, speeding, failure to stop or slow down without a warning, and following too closely, and "general negligence by reason of the rear-end collision." Id. In his answer, the defendant admitted the general negligence allegation, but denied the other allegations. Id. Plaintiff amended his...