Background
A City of St. Louis truck driven by a City employee struck Tara Straussner while she was driving to work. Straussner was treated for a concussion and knee and back injuries and later was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome and post-concussive migraine. She alleged that the accident caused memory and personality changes and impaired her ability to perform her job.
After a jury trial, Straussner received $1,162,229 for personal injuries and $6,600 for property damage. On the City’s motion, the circuit court amended the judgment to reduce the award to the applicable 2025 statutory limit of $517,306. The City appealed, challenging Straussner’s damages request during closing argument, her requests for future lost wages and medical expenses, and testimony from her treating physicians.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the merits of the City’s challenges. The City’s first argument was unpreserved because its appellate claim concerning the overruling of a closing-argument objection differed from the mistrial claim presented in its motion for new trial.
The second point improperly combined separate challenges to future lost wages and future medical expenses, supplied an inapplicable standard of review, and did not substantially comply with Missouri’s appellate briefing requirements. It also suffered from the same preservation defect as the first point. The third point could not be reviewed because the City failed to provide the deposition transcripts or videos needed to evaluate the challenged physician testimony. Because the City did not request plain-error review, the court declined to undertake it on its own.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate argument must match the claim of error presented to the trial court and preserved in the motion for new trial.
- A point relied on should not combine distinct claims requiring separate legal analyses, and the brief must identify the applicable standard of review.
- An appellant must provide all transcripts, exhibits, and other record materials necessary to decide its claims.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that preservation, briefing, and record-completeness rules can determine an appeal before the court considers the underlying merits. Parties challenging closing arguments, damages evidence, or expert testimony must frame the same objections consistently in the trial court and on appeal.
It also confirms that Missouri appellate courts will not ordinarily perform plain-error review sua sponte. Because the City did not request that review, its procedural failures left the reduced judgment for Straussner intact.