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 accident occurred or evidence of the alleged negligent acts of the defendants because they admitted liability,30 making the evidence not relevant to any issue in dispute.31 The Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District noted that Union Pacific made a general admission of liability prior to trial, and Amtrak made a general admission on the last day of trial.32 The court also noted that Amtrak kept its affirmative defense of contributory negligence in place.33 The court concluded that pursuant to Ruppel, Burrows was entitled to introduce evidence showing the circumstances of the incident.34 The court reasoned that allowing a defendant to substitute a naked admission for a full picture of the events may rob the evidence of much of its fair and legitimate weight.35
Missouri courts addressed the issue again in Cogdill v. Flanagan ex rel. Larson in which the trial court initially excluded evidence of the facts of the case such as the defendant truck driver's intoxication.36 A week before trial, the defendant truck company "admitted liability for the accident" and filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of intoxication as well as the events of the incident.37 The defendant did not specifically admit each allegation of negligence.38 At the trial, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $50,000.39 The plaintiffs then sought a new trial and appealed.40 The Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District found that the qualified admission of liability should not have barred the plaintiffs from presenting evidence of the accident including that the driver was intoxicated.41 The court noted the admission of liability was qualified and was made the week before trial.42 The court further found that the admission prevented the plaintiffs from presenting their whole case and ordered a new trial.43
The Cogdill case contained a dissent opinion in which Hon. Daniel E. Scott stated that the trial court judge was in the best position to assess whether the evidence of intoxication was admissible.44 Scott went on to note that the trial court judge had the duty to exclude irrelevant evidence, and given the admission of negligence in the case, the issue of intoxication was irrelevant to the facts before the jury.45
Analysis
The majority of jurisdictions do not follow Missouri's rule.46 In most jurisdictions, where the defendant admits liability, evidence of the incident is deemed irrelevant, and the issues presented to the jury are only those issues that are relevant to the issues of damages.47 The decisions of the Virginia and California supreme courts state that evidence relevant only to an admitted fact should be barred. Numerous additional state decisions have reached the same conclusion.48 As stated in Bullard v. Barnes, Illinois follows this approach and generally, once the defendant admits liability, any evidence of the underlying incident is deemed irrelevant.49
The approach followed in other states would provide defendants with more incentive to admit fault in litigation. Admitting fault can make litigation more efficient by avoiding discovery and depositions on facts that are not in dispute. However, in Missouri, defendants are in a position where even admitting fault means the plaintiff can still put on all the evidence from the case. The result is that the defendant is given no reason to concede any aspect of the case. The Missouri approach also leads to the admission of evidence that is not technically relevant to any issue in dispute, which runs contrary to Missouri's basic evidentiary rules.
The argument could be made that admitting liability buys credibility with the jury, even if the plaintiff is allowed to put on their case. This approach could also provide the same benefits to the defendant that an admission of fault would offer. However, this approach still leads to the submission of evidence to the jury on issues that are not in dispute.
Finally, the argument could be made that an unqualified admission of liability would result in the evidence being barred. None of the cases that have examined the issue involved an unqualified admission of liability. The dicta in the cases would indicate the evidence of liability would still be admissible. However, this fact pattern has not been addressed, and Missouri defense counsel could argue that when there is an unqualified admission the evidence of the underlying event should not be admissible.
This issue could be addressed in a Missouri Supreme Court Rule or statute to provide clarity, as there is currently no Missouri Supreme Court Rule or statue that controls this issue.
Footnotes
1 Kenney v. Myers, 674 S.W.3d 139, 143 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023
2 Id. at 141.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 141-42.
5 Id. at 142.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 142-43.
9 Id. at 143.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Kenney, 674 S.W.3d at 144.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 145.
19 Id.
20 Kenney, 674 S.W.3d at 145.
21 Id.
22 Ruppel v. Clayes, 72 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Mo. Ct. App. 1934).
23 Id. at 833.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Burrows v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 218 S.W.3d 527, 534 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
29 Id. at 532.
30 Id. at 534.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 Cogdill v. Flanagan ex rel Larson, 410 S.W.2d 714 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
37 Id. at 713.
38 Id. at 724.
39 Id. at 721.
40 Id. at 722.
41 Id. at 725.
42 Id. at 724.
43 Id. at 725-26.
44 Id. at 727.
45 Id. at 726.
46 C.C. Marvel, Annotation, Admission of liability as affecting admissibility of evidence as to the circumstances of accident on issue of damages in a tort action for personal injury, wrongful death, or property damage, 80 A.L.R.2d 1224 (1961).
47 Eubank v. Spencer, 128 S.E.2d 299, 301 (Va. 1962); Fuentes v. Tucker, 187 P.2d 752, 753 (Cal. 1947).
48 Sheppard v. Geneva Rock, 493 P.3d 632, 642 (Utah Sup. Ct. 2021); Mace v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-81171-DMM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233862 at *5-*6 (S.D. Fla. June 5, 2018); Swanson v. Robles, 128 So. 3d 915, 917 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013); Knowles v. Levan, 15 A.3d 504, 507 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011).
49 Bullard v. Barnes, 468 N.E.2d 1228, 1235 (Ill. 1984).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
