Premises Liability Complaint - Missouri

PREMISES LIABILITY PETITION — MISSOURI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Duty of Care — Visitor Status
6. First Cause of Action — Negligence (Premises Liability)
7. Second Cause of Action — Failure to Warn
8. Third Cause of Action — Negligent Maintenance
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. Prayer for Relief
12. Verification
13. State-Specific Notes
14. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF [COUNTY NAME / CITY OF ST. LOUIS]

STATE OF MISSOURI

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Missouri.

2. Defendant [DEFENDANT FULL NAME] ("Defendant") is [an individual residing in / a corporation organized under the laws of / a limited liability company formed under the laws of] [STATE], and at all relevant times was the [owner / lessee / occupier / manager] of the real property located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Missouri (the "Premises"). Defendant may be served with process at [ADDRESS FOR SERVICE].

3.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Mo. Const. art. V, § 14 and RSMo § 478.070.

5. Venue is proper in [COUNTY / CITY OF ST. LOUIS] pursuant to RSMo § 508.010 because Plaintiff was first injured in Missouri in this county by the acts or conduct alleged. [If Plaintiff was first injured outside Missouri, replace this allegation with the applicable subsection 5 analysis.]

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. At all relevant times, Defendant [owned / leased / occupied / managed / controlled] the Premises located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], Missouri [ZIP CODE].

7. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], Plaintiff was [lawfully present on / entering / exiting] the Premises for the purpose of [PURPOSE OF VISIT].

8. At the time of the incident, there existed on the Premises a dangerous condition that involved an unreasonable risk of harm, specifically: [DESCRIBE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN DETAIL].

9. Defendant had [actual / constructive] knowledge of the dangerous condition because:

☐ Defendant created the dangerous condition.

☐ Defendant had actual knowledge of the condition through [DESCRIBE].

☐ The condition existed for a sufficient period of time that Defendant, by using ordinary care, should have discovered it.

☐ The condition was part of a recurring hazard known to Defendant.

10. Defendant failed to use ordinary care to remove, remedy, or warn of the danger.

11. As a direct result of the dangerous condition, Plaintiff [DESCRIBE INCIDENT] and sustained serious injuries.

5. DUTY OF CARE — VISITOR STATUS

12. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was [an invitee / a licensee] on the Premises.

If Invitee:

13. Plaintiff entered the Premises at the express or implied invitation of Defendant for a purpose connected with the business conducted on the Premises. Under Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d 222, 225-26 (Mo. banc 1993), Defendant owed the reasonable-care duties applicable to invitees and conditions on land.

If Licensee:

13. Plaintiff entered the Premises with the consent of Defendant but not for a business purpose. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to warn of known dangerous conditions that were not open and obvious and to refrain from injuring Plaintiff by willful or wanton conduct.

6. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY)

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 13 above.

15. Defendant owed Plaintiff the duties described above.

16. Defendant breached these duties by [failing to maintain the Premises / failing to inspect / failing to repair / failing to warn].

17. Defendant's breach directly and proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — FAILURE TO WARN

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

18. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

19. Defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.

20. Defendant failed to provide adequate warning to Plaintiff.

21. Defendant's failure to warn was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

8. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE

(Against [DEFENDANT NAME])

22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

23. Defendant had a duty to properly maintain the Premises.

24. Defendant negligently failed to perform required maintenance, specifically [DESCRIBE].

25. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

9. DAMAGES

26. As a proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered the following damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses.

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future loss of wages and earning capacity.

c. Physical Pain and Suffering: Past and future physical pain and suffering.

d. Mental Anguish: Past and future mental anguish and emotional distress.

e. Physical Impairment: Past and future physical impairment and disability.

f. Disfigurement: Past and future disfigurement.

g. Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Past and future loss of enjoyment of life.

h. Loss of Consortium: [IF APPLICABLE — Loss of consortium.]

10. JURY DEMAND

27. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.

11. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:

1. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
2. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
3. Costs of suit;
4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], Mo. Bar No. [NUMBER]
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[ADDRESS LINE 2]
[CITY], Missouri [ZIP CODE]
Telephone: [PHONE]
Facsimile: [FAX]
Email: [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME]

12. VERIFICATION

STATE OF MISSOURI
COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]

I, [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME], being duly sworn, state that the facts set forth in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

________________________________________
[PLAINTIFF FULL NAME]

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on [DATE].

________________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: [DATE]

13. STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

Visitor Classifications. Missouri bases premises liability on the status of the entrant: invitees (highest duty), licensees, and trespassers (lowest duty).

Pure Comparative Fault. Missouri follows pure comparative fault for negligence claims — a plaintiff can recover even if 99% at fault. Damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. RSMo § 537.765 codifies this for products liability; case law extends it to all negligence.

Five-Year General Limitation. RSMo §§ 516.100 and 516.120(4) generally provide five years after damage is sustained and capable of ascertainment, subject to claim-specific rules.

Public-Entity Limits. RSMo § 537.610 imposes annually adjusted liability limits and bars punitive or exemplary damages on covered public-entity claims.

Punitive Damages. For actions governed by RSMo § 510.261, the initial pleading may not claim punitive damages. A later punitive pleading requires court leave and evidence supporting the statute's clear-and-convincing standard.

Government Claims. Sovereign immunity applies to the state and its subdivisions, with limited waivers under RSMo § 537.600 for dangerous conditions of public property and injuries from motor vehicles.

Open and Obvious Doctrine. Under Harris, an open and obvious condition can negate breach when the possessor reasonably may rely on invitees to perceive and protect themselves from it; a duty may remain when harm should be anticipated despite knowledge or obviousness.

14. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• RSMo § 516.120 — Five-year statute of limitations
• Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) — Pure comparative fault (negligence); RSMo § 537.765 — Pure comparative fault (products-liability claims only)
• RSMo § 537.345–537.348 — Recreational use immunity
• RSMo § 537.600 — Sovereign immunity waivers
• Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. 1993) (premises liability elements)