Case Summaries for June 6-12, 2025
Each week, The Missouri Bar provides links to all hand downs published online during the past seven days by the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Missouri Bar has created headings and summaries for each case. Summaries are not part of the opinions of the Court. They have been prepared for the convenience of the reader and should not be quoted or cited.
Civil
Post-judgment interest awarded too late
Whether statements from defendant’s employee to defendant’s lawyers were attorney-client privileged depended on the existence of an attorney-client privilege, of which the elements were in dispute, and on which the record supported the circuit court’s determination. Defendant did not show that statements from defendant’s employee to defendant’s lawyers were attorney-client privileged because defendant did not show that the statements were made at the direction of a superior. Statute mandated post-judgment interest, but plaintiff did not ask for post-judgment interest until plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment, which plaintiff filed too late; the circuit court lost authority over the judgment when it ruled on all authorized after-trial motions, and omission of statutorily required interest was not subject to correction nunc pro tunc. In an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, no violation “of any statute enacted for the safety of employees” was at issue. Therefore, defendant was entitled to a directed verdict on plaintiff’s negligence per se theory, contributory negligence was a defense, and defendant was entitled to a diminution of damages in accordance with the jury’s assessment of fault to plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the amended judgment and remanded the matter to circuit court for an amended award of damages.
(Overview summary)
Christopher Cole, Respondent, vs. The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100788
Schools
Defendant's JNOV affirmed in transgender discrimination claim
In an action under the Human Rights Act for sex discrimination in public accommodations, plaintiff student had to show a “contributing factor” link between the denial of access to a male restroom and locker room and plaintiff’s protected status as a male. Instructions accordingly were not in error. Male sex meant male genitalia, while plaintiff had female genitalia, which defined plaintiff as female. Because the record did not support plaintiff’s allegation, that plaintiff was male, the circuit court did not err in granting the defendant school district’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
R.M.A., Appellant, vs. Blue Springs R-IV School District, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Missouri - SC100694