DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Kunkle Water & Electric, Inc. v. Nehai Tonkayea Lake Ass'n, 639 S.W.2d 177 (1982)

Citation
Kunkle Water & Electric, Inc. v. Nehai Tonkayea Lake Ass'n, 639 S.W.2d 177 (1982)
Parent Document
Kunkle Water & Electric, Inc. v. Nehai Tonkayea Lake Ass'n, 639 S.W.2d 177 (1982)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1982-07-27
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5232701/kunkle-water-electric-inc-v-neh... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (16)

Full Text

846 chars 
The difficulty here is that the court gave another damage instruction, No. 8, “If you find in favor of Plaintiff, Kunkle Water and Electric, Inc., on plaintiff’s claim for damages, then you must award plaintiff such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate plaintiff for any damages you believe it sustained as a direct result of the conduct of defendant as submitted in Instruction No. 7.” The trial court found “that the giving of the two damage instructions did not confuse the jurors and did not prejudice the outcome of the case”, but nevertheless, ruled that it should not be done or tolerated in the courts, and granted a new trial on that basis. Instruction No. 8 is apparently a modification of MAI 4.01, modified, entitled “Damages-Personal and Property”, and under plaintiff’s theory of action on account, it was erroneous.