Representing some of the largest retailers in the nation, the hospitality industry, restaurants, manufacturers and many other businesses, BSCR takes an aggressive approach to defending premises liability matters, having successfully defended multi-million dollar cases.
We offer our clients a winning combination of experience that encompasses a four-pronged approach.
- We make an early evaluation of the claim, arriving at our client’s place of business almost immediately after an incident has occurred, taking care to investigate and preserve evidence that could influence our litigation strategy.
- To the extent possible, we make early case evaluations as to whether a case should be settled early or defended.
- We identify public relations fallout that could adversely affect the business concerns of our larger clients. These concerns, too, drive our strategy.
- As experienced litigators well versed in negligence issues in the premises liability context, we never shy away from taking our cases to trial when necessary. Because members of the plaintiff’s bar in our area know this about us, we are often successful in reaching mediated settlements that are favorable to our clients.
This is our approach whether our clients are facing possible liability for slip and falls, industrial accidents, civil rights complaints, claims of failing to provide adequate security, serious injuries or deaths.
Our attorneys have handled appeals in state supreme court and Federal appellate court resulting in precedent-setting rulings in the premises liability field.
We are active in educating industry leaders about trial tactics and also regularly teach continuing legal education seminars.
For more information about our Premises Liability practice contact Shawn Rogers or Marcos Barbosa at 816.471.2121.
BSCR defended a retailer sued by a shopper who was struck by a falling object. Plaintiff claimed a cervical injury that resulted in a cervical fusion. Plaintiff claimed permanent range of motion limitations in her neck due to the fusion.
After a trial in Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court, Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice won a premises liability case in which our clients were sued by an individual who broke his leg. The plaintiff slipped and fell at night on ice in a parking lot, requiring surgery and a metal plate being put into his leg (ORIF). The defense centered on...
After a week-long trial in the US District Court for the District of Kansas, Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice won a defense verdict for a retail client in a premises liability case in which our client was sued by an individual seeking as much as $500,000 in damages.
BSCR obtained summary judgment on behalf of a General Contractor, Subcontractor, and Subcontractor’s Employee, on a multi-million dollar claim made by an ironworker who claimed to have been injured on a universty project. . .
Summary Judgment granted in favor of BSCR client was affirmed by the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District. Plaintiff claimed that our client's security (provided by Police Officers on approved secondary duty), ejected him from our facility and later hit him in the head with a police baton causing permanent injury. . .
After a week-long trial in which plaintiff alleged severe physical and mental injuries left her disabled after being hit by a shopping cart in our client's retail store, a Kansas Federal jury returned a favorable verdict for our client. . .
BSCR successfully defended a major retail client at trial where plaintiff claimed she tripped and fell over a mat in the client's store causing her to break her hip. Plaintiff asked the jury for an award of $4M. . .
BSCR negotiated a favorable settlement on behalf of our client, an international airport, in an action filed in Platte County, Missouri in which plaintiff, an airline passenger, alleged injuries sustained due to dangerous property conditions at the airport.
| The Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that the attorney-client privilege protects a party from being required to disclose that her attorney referred her to treating doctors.
| In the case of Wilson v. Dura-Seal and Stripe, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held that the “acceptance doctrine” is still valid law in Missouri, and bars liability against a construction contractor for the injury of a third party after the owner of the premises has accepted the work.
| Earlier this week, Governor Eric Greitens signed Missouri HB 153 into law. HB 153, which supplants Missouri’s existing expert witness standard with that set forth in Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703, 704 and 705, effectively submits expert testimony in most civil and criminal case to the analysis set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
| Within a two-week period, two federal judges issued strongly worded orders denouncing the common practice of asserting boilerplate objections to written discovery.
| A premises owner’s duty to protect an invitee from the criminal acts of third parties is triggered by foreseeability. An employer’s safety policies and procedures - and a failure to follow them - may be considered when determining the owner/employer’s negligence toward an employee, in an assault that occurred on company premises.
| A Missouri plaintiff did not irrevocably waive the protections of the work product doctrine simply by designating an expert witness and then withdrawing the designation without disclosing the expert’s analysis or conclusions.
| In McNearney v. LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District recently affirmed a trial court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant fitness club from claims by the Plaintiff that it was negligent and reckless in allowing her to become injured while participating in a boot camp exercise class.
| The Montreal Convention, a treaty which became effective in the United States on November 4, 2003, governs the rights and liabilities of international air carriers and passengers. Among its more important provisions, Article 29 of the Montreal Convention states that...
| While a Kansas court may grant relief from a final judgment based on excusable neglect, it is an abuse of discretion to grant that relief when the party seeking that relief has failed either to explain what facts constituted excusable neglect or to provide any evidence to support that claim.
| It has long been thegeneral rule in Missouri that for a party to contractually release itself from or limit liability for its own future negligence, the language in the contract must be clear, unequivocal, conspicuous and must explicitly include the word “negligence” or “fault.” However, when the contract is negotiated at arm’s length between “sophisticated commercial entities”, a party can release itself from or limit liability with less precise language.
| K.S.A. 60-19a02 has been amended, increasing Kansas's long-standing cap on non-economic damages (pain and suffering) recoverable in personal injury. K.S.A. 60-456(b) has also been amended to mirror the requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 702.
| Experts are not required to rule out all possible causes when performing the differential etiology analysis if the experts have properly ruled in the alleged cause.
| A Kansas plaintiff may amend their pleadings to assert punitive damages up until the day of the pretrial conference.
| A man who sued his former employer, alleging he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, appealed on the basis that the trial court used a jury instruction with the wrong standard. In a 5-2 decision written by Judge George W. Draper III, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected the 'exclusive causation' standard and replaced it with the "contributing factor" standard. On remand and in future cases, the jury must determine whether the plaintiff's filing of a workers' compensation claim was a "contributing factor" to his or her discharge.
| Based on its adoption of a statutory scheme of comparative negligence, Kansas has abolished common law assumption of the risk as a bar to recovery. Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299, 312 P3d 345, 355 (Kan. 2013).
| The plaintiff has the burden of proving standing, which is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time.
| In Kansas, the parties bind themselves to an enforceable settlement, even though the parties contemplate subsequent execution of a formal instrument. However, when the parties specifically condition a contract on it being reduced to writing and signed, there is no enforceable contract until such act is accomplished.