Civil defense litigators are often faced with the dilemma of whether to admit negligence or contest liability on all issues. In cases where liability is relatively clear, defense counsel can risk alienating the jury or fact finder by contesting issues that are not in dispute. In Missouri, that decision is more complicated than in other jurisdictions. Under Missouri law, the plaintiff is not required to accept the defendant's admission of negligence.
Kenney v. Myers addresses impact of admission of negligence
In Kenney v. Myers, the Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District reaffirmed this principle of Missouri law.1 The defendant, Kailey K. Myers, was driving a vehicle on Interstate 70 with two minors as passengers. Myers was involved in a collision that resulted in the death of one passenger.2
One of the minors' mothers, Marlayna Kenney, filed a wrongful death suit against Myers.3 The second passenger intervened and brought claims for his personal injuries. Kenney alleged negligence against Myers, claiming she failed to operate the vehicle with the highest degree of care.4 Myers initially denied the allegations of negligence but later admitted negligence and amended her answer to state, "[Myers] admits only that she was at fault in causing the accident."5 The parties then filed a stipulation which stated: (1) Myers admitted fault for the accident while reserving all defenses to the nature and extent of injuries claimed by the plaintiffs; (2) the plaintiffs waived and dismissed their claims for aggravated circumstances and punitive damages; and (3) the case would be tried by the bench.6
Defense counsel moved in limine to bar all evidence of liability at trial, which the court denied.7 The court admitted evidence including the Missouri Drivers Manual, video statements Myers made to the Kansas City Police Department, and deposition testimony from Myers and other witnesses.8 The deposition testimony stated Myers was on her phone at the time of the incident, and the passengers were not wearing seatbelts.9 The court also admitted evidence including driving data from her vehicle and her cellphone data.10
The trial court awarded Kenney $10 million for the wrongful death and $397,000 for injuries.11 Myers appealed on the basis that evidence of the accident should not have been admitted because she admitted negligence.12
The Kenney court first found that Myers had not made a full and unequivocal admission of fault.13 The court noted the plaintiffs alleged Myers was at fault in numerous ways.14 Myers admitted only that she was at fault for causing the accident.15 The court further stated that because Myers admitted generally that she was at fault, she consequently denied the specific allegations of negligence.16 The court concluded that because there was no clear, full, and unequivocal admission of liability, there was no basis to argue that the trial court should stray from the general rule in Missouri.17
The court went on to hold that even if Myers made an unqualified admission of liability, the plaintiffs would still have the right to introduce evidence relevant to the issue of liability.18 The court stated that a plaintiff has a right to present to the jury competent and relevant evidence to show all the circumstances of the accident.19
The court found that it did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Myers' negligent acts.20 The court noted that all evidence directly related to Myers' actions leading up to the accident and after the accident was relevant to the circumstances attending the accident.21
Missouri case law on admissions of negligence
The general rule in Missouri was stated in Ruppel v. Clayes.22 Ruppel involved an auto accident case where the defendant was allegedly under the influence of alcohol. Defense counsel told the judge outside the presence of the jury that he was going to admit liability and object to any reference of intoxication.23 Defense counsel objected when the plaintiff's counsel mentioned the intoxication in opening statement.24
The Ruppel court found that a party is not required to accept the judicial admission of its adversary but may insist on proving the fact.25 The court went on to state that the plaintiff may elect to prove the issue at jury trial.26 The court further noted that the defendant only made a qualified admission of negligence.27
This conclusion was elaborated upon in Burrows v. Union Pacific R. Co.28 Curtis Burrows, a Union Pacific employee, brought a Federal Employers' Liability Act claim against Union Pacific and a negligence claim against Amtrak for personal injuries he sustained after he was struck by an Amtrak train.29 The defendants argued Burrows should not have been allowed to introduce evidence of how the...
