STRAUSSNER v. CITY OF ST LOUIS (2026)

Introduction

City of St. Louis (City) appeals from the trial court's amended judgment in Tara Straussner's (Straussner) favor following a jury trial. City raises three points on appeal arguing the trial court erred in overruling City's objections to Straussner's (1) request for damages in closing argument; (2) request for future lost wages and medical expenses; and (3) presentation of her treating physicians’ testimony. Because City failed to preserve its arguments for appellate review and did not request plain error review, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

On March 7, 2023, Straussner was driving to work when a City truck driven by Ronald Meyer (Meyer), a City employee, struck her. In the months after the incident, Straussner received treatment from Dr. Steven Stahle for a concussion and knee and back injuries. In early 2024, Straussner began a new job as an administrative assistant at a trucking company. But after several months, she was demoted due to her inability to learn and perform tasks. Straussner noticed she was having difficulty remembering things and recounted how her personality had changed after the accident. Straussner was referred to a neurosurgeon, Dr. Sean Markey, who diagnosed her with post concussive syndrome and post concussive migraine. Straussner underwent cognitive therapy and showed significant improvements, but Dr. Markey was uncertain her symptoms would ever fully resolve.

In December 2023, Straussner filed her petition alleging negligence against Meyer and negligence against City through vicarious liability. In discovery, City sought disclosure of Straussner's total claimed damages. Straussner responded she was seeking damages for past and future medical bills, lost wages, disfigurement, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life in excess of $25,000, as well as compensation for her vehicle and a ring which was damaged.

The case proceeded to jury trial on June 23, 2025. As part of her case-in-chief, Straussner played videotaped depositions of Drs. Stahle and Markey over City's objection that their testimony exceeded the proper scope of a non-retained expert. In closing argument, Straussner presented a demonstrative exhibit to the jury, which displayed a table of categories of damages and a tally of amounts she sought. In total, Straussner asked the jury to award her $2,367,729 for her personal injuries and $6,600 for property damage. After Straussner concluded her closing argument, City objected to the demonstrative exhibit and asked it be stricken. City argued: (1) there was no evidence of future lost wages or future medical costs, (2) it had not been shown the demonstrative exhibit prior to it being used throughout Straussner's closing, and (3) it had not been informed earlier as to the total amount of claimed damages. The trial court overruled the objections.

The jury awarded Straussner $1,162,229 for her personal injuries and $6,600 for property damage. After trial, on City's motion to comply with section 537.610,¹ the trial court amended its judgment to reduce the award to the applicable 2025 statutory limit of $517,306. In its motion for new trial, City alleged the trial court erred on four grounds by: (1) admitting Dr. Markey's testimony which lacked a sufficient factual basis or reliably applied methods to the facts; (2) admitting treating physician testimony beyond the scope of Straussner's treatment; (3) denying City's motion for a mistrial on the grounds Straussner claimed a total amount of damages greater than what was disclosed in discovery; and (4) denying City's motion for a mistrial on the grounds Straussner claimed categories of damages for which there was no evidence. The trial court denied City's motion. This appeal follows.

Analysis

City raises three points on appeal. Because all three points are unpreserved for appellate review and City has not requested plain error review under Rule 84.13(c),² we affirm.

Point One: Request for Damages in Closing

In Point One, City claims the trial court erred in overruling its objection to Straussner's request for damages in closing arguments because the request violated section 509.050.³ City argues the statute entitles it to discover Straussner's total claim of damages, and her request to the jury was nearly twenty times greater than what was disclosed in discovery. We deny Point One because City's argument differs from its argument raised in the trial court and is therefore unpreserved.

“[A]llegations of error not presented to or expressly decided by the trial court shall not be considered in any civil appeal from a jury tried case.” Rule 84.13(a). “[A] party is not entitled on appeal to raise a claim of trial court error when the party did not alert the trial court to the error and give it the opportunity to rule on the question.” Williams v. St. Charles Auto Mart, Inc., 690 S.W.3d 495, 501 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (citing Brown v. Brown, 423 S.W.3d 784, 787–88 (Mo. banc 2014)). “Claims of error that are not preserved are subject to dismissal.” Id. Generally, in jury tried cases, “allegations of error must be included in a motion for a new trial in order to be preserved for appellate review.” Rule 78.07(a).

City's motion for new trial alleged the trial court erred in denying its motion for a mistrial because Straussner claimed at trial an amount of damages greater than what she disclosed in discovery. The drastic remedy of declaring a mistrial is appropriate when prejudice cannot be adequately cured by a lesser remedy. See Wilkinson v. Stanley Fastening Sys., L.P., 693 S.W.3d 166, 172 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024). In contrast, reversal of a trial court's ruling on an objection made during closing argument is warranted if the statement complained of had “a decisive effect” on the jury's verdict. Peterson v. Progressive Contractors, Inc., 399 S.W.3d 850, 857 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).

The trial court did not have an opportunity to expressly decide whether it erred in simply overruling City's objection to Straussner's request for damages in closing argument because City's motion did not present this claim of error for review. Therefore, it is unpreserved for appellate review. See Williams, 690 S.W.3d at 501; see also City of Kansas City v. Troyer, 670 S.W.3d 77, 84 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (finding appellant's “argument on appeal does not mimic his argument before the trial court” and declining to “convict the trial court of error with respect to an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider”).

Point One “can only be reviewed, if at all, for plain error.” Int. of K.C.G., 689 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024). City has not requested plain error review. We will not sua sponte review for plain error when an appellant has not requested it. Id. Point One is denied.

Point Two: Closing Argument Request for Future Lost Wages and Future Medical Expenses

In Point Two, City contends the trial court erred in overruling its objection to Straussner's damage requests for future lost wages and future medical expenses. City alleges Straussner presented no evidence of those damages. We deny Point Two because it does not substantially comply with Rule 84.04 in multiple respects.

Appellate briefing requirements are set forth in Rule 84.04, and compliance with those requirements is mandatory. Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc 2022). Although we generally prefer to dispose of a matter on its merits rather than dismiss it due to technical briefing deficiencies, an argument is unpreserved if a party fails to substantially comply with Rule 84.04. Engeman v. Engeman, 123 S.W.3d 227, 236 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003).

Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires points relied on to: “(A) [i]dentify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges; (B) [s]tate concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and (C) [e]xplain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.” A point that “groups together multiple, independent claims rather than a single claim of error” is multifarious and preserves nothing for review. Macke v. Patton, 591 S.W.3d 865, 869 (Mo. banc 2019) (quoting In re Kirk v. State, 520 S.W.3d 443, 450 n.3 (Mo. banc 2017)).

City's second point challenges the trial court's ruling on an objection to two different categories of damages: future lost wages and future medical expenses. Both issues “are separate and distinct inquiries, each requiring its own discrete legal analysis.” Id. at 869–70; see also Dodson v. Ferrara, 491 S.W.3d 542, 567 (Mo. banc 2016) (“Damages for loss of future earnings must be established with reasonable certainty through the introduction of substantial evidence.”); Ball v. Allied Physicians Grp., L.L.C., 548 S.W.3d 373, 382 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (“[T]o aid the jury in determining the extent and value of a present injury, the plaintiff can present expert testimony to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the defendant's conduct placed the plaintiff at an increased risk of suffering possible future consequences.”).

Even if we excused City's multifarious second point, its argument is also deficient under Rule 84.04(e), which provides in relevant part, “[t]he argument shall be limited to those errors included in the ‘Points Relied On.’ For each claim of error, the argument shall also include a concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for appellate review; if so, how it was preserved; and the applicable standard of review.” Point Two is further deficient because the standard of review and argument are completely different from what City contends in its point relied on. See Engeman, 123 S.W.3d at 236 (finding a point is improperly preserved when point on appeal and argument were completely different).

Next, although City challenges the trial court's ruling on its objection to Straussner's damages request during closing argument, it offers the standard of review for refusal to grant a mistrial. Additionally, City states the burden of proof for damages rests with the plaintiff. Neither statement is applicable to the trial court's denial of City's objection to Straussner's damages request during closing argument.

“An appellant's failure to comply with Rule 84.04(e) by including the applicable standard of review is grounds for dismissal.” Jackson v. Sykes, 686 S.W.3d 393, 397 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (internal quotation omitted). As stated above, “[a] trial court's rulings on objections made to remarks by counsel during closing arguments are reviewed for abuse of discretion,” and reversal is not warranted unless the comment had a “decisive effect” on the jury's verdict. Peterson, 399 S.W.3d at 856–57. Conversely, denials of requests for mistrials are reviewed for manifest abuse of discretion, and the movant “must demonstrate ‘a grievous error where prejudice cannot otherwise be removed’ by any lesser sanction.’ ” Wilkinson, 693 S.W.3d at 170 (quoting Sherrer v. Boston Sci. Corp., 609 S.W.3d 697, 716 (Mo. banc 2020)).

Although we prefer to reach the merits of an issue, rather than dismiss for briefing deficiencies, we are unable to do so on Point Two. “The function of the appellate court is to examine asserted error, not to serve as an advocate for any party on appeal.” Pearson v. Keystone Temp. Assignment Grp., Inc., 588 S.W.3d 546, 552 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (internal quotation omitted). When an appellant files a deficient brief, “this Court is left with the dilemma of deciding the case (and possibly establishing precedent for future cases) on the basis of inadequate briefing and advocacy or undertaking additional research and briefing to supply the deficiency.” Id. (quoting Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978)). “We cannot become advocates for an appellant by speculating about facts and arguments that have not been made.” Id. Reviewing a deficient point risks interpreting it “differently than the opponent or differently than was intended by the party asserting the claim.” Id. at 552–53 (quoting Mace v. Daye, 17 S.W.3d 154, 156 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000)).

To meaningfully review Point Two, this Court would be forced to craft City's argument on appeal by conducting an analysis of two separate issues under a standard of review different than the standard posited by City. This we cannot do.

Even if we were able to look past City's deficient briefing, it suffers the same fatal preservation flaw as Point One. City's motion for new trial alleged the trial court erred in denying its motion for mistrial on the grounds Straussner claimed damages for which there was no evidence. Because City's argument on appeal does not mimic its position in the trial court, the trial court did not have the opportunity to expressly rule on the matter, and the argument is unpreserved. See Williams, 690 S.W.3d at 501. Further, we decline to conduct plain error review, which City did not request. See Int. of K.C.G., 689 S.W.3d at 764. Point Two is denied.

Point Three: Objections to Physician Testimony

In Point Three, City alleges the trial court erred in overruling its objections to Straussner's presentation of her treating physicians’ testimony. City argues the physicians were non-retained medical experts who were only permitted to testify regarding their own treatment of Straussner, when in fact the physicians opined as to the reasonableness, necessity, and causation of treatment from other providers. We deny Point Three because City failed to provide a complete record on appeal and the issue is therefore unpreserved.

Rule 81.12(a) provides “[t]he record on appeal shall contain all of the record, proceedings and evidence necessary to the determination of all questions to be presented, by either appellant or respondent, to the appellate court for decision.” Further,

[i]f original exhibits are necessary to the determination of any point relied on, they shall be deposited in the appellate court by the appellant. If a party other than appellant has custody of exhibits, appellant may request that party to either deposit the exhibits with the appellate court or deliver them to appellant for deposit with the court.

Rule 81.16(a). City, as the appellant, is “responsible for depositing all exhibits that are necessary for the determination of any point relied on.” Carter v. Carter, 721 S.W.3d 878, 885 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (citing Rule 81.16(a)).

Here, City complains about Drs. Stahle's and Markey's testimony. A review of the record shows the two physicians testified in videotaped depositions, which were played for the jury. City cites to the two transcripts in its brief but failed to deposit either the transcripts or the videotaped depositions—at least one of which is necessary to the determination of the question presented—with this Court. While Straussner provided exhibits—designation lists for Drs. Markey and Stahle—only one portion of Dr. Stahle's testimony of which City complains can be easily identified. City, citing to the deposition transcripts it did not provide, appears to raise claims about the physicians’ testimony that go beyond what is contained in Straussner's exhibits. “In the absence of a complete record on appeal, the appellate court cannot review the merits of an appellant's claim and the appeal must be dismissed.” Marmaduke v. CBL & Assocs. Mgmt., Inc., 521 S.W.3d 257, 277 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

Point Three “can only be reviewed, if at all, for plain error.” Int. of K.C.G., 689 S.W.3d at 764. City has not requested plain error review. Because we will not sua sponte review for plain error when a party has not requested it, Point Three is denied. See id.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All statutory references are to RSMo (2016). Section 537.610 established annually-adjusted limitations on damages against public entities.

2.   All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2025).

3.   Section 509.050.2 states “[a] party may discover the total damages being claimed. The response to such discovery shall not be used at trial by opposing parties for any purpose.”

Virginia W. Lay, Presiding Judge

Angela T. Quigless, Judge, concurs. Thomas C. Clark, II, Judge, concurs.