HB 2241 -- Court Procedures

Sponsor:  Stevenson

This bill changes the laws regarding merchandising practices by
limiting a person's recovery to out-of-pocket loss instead of
actual damages and requiring proof that the method, act, or
practice declared unlawful by the court under the Merchandising
Practices Act caused the person to enter into the transaction
that resulted in the loss.  In order to recover damages in an
individual action, each class member is required to prove that
the method, act, or practice declared unlawful by the court under
the Merchandising Practices Act caused each member to enter into
the transaction that resulted in the loss.  The court may provide
injunctive relief to protect the prevailing party and determine a
proposed award of reasonable attorney fees.  Each member of the
class action must submit a statement requesting a specific dollar
amount and provide information regarding the nature of the loss,
injury, or damage.  No judgment will be entered until the trier
of fact has determined the amount owed to each class member, and
the amount of judgment cannot exceed the sum owed to each member.

In any civil action brought under the Merchandising Practices
Act, the courts must be guided by the policies of the Federal
Trade Commission and interpretations given by the commission and
the federal courts to 15 U.S.C. Section 45(a)(1).  The bill also
states the legislative intent of the General Assembly that courts
follow the Supreme Court opinions of Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals; General Electric Company v. Joiner; and Kumho
Tire Company v. Carmichael in their interpretation and
application of the bill.

An expert witness may give his or her opinion when the testimony
in a civil action is based on the facts as proved by other
witnesses.  The facts used by the expert witness to form his or
her opinion do not have to be admissible in evidence in order for
the opinion to be admitted if the facts are of a type reasonably
relied upon by an expert in that particular field.  Any facts or
data that are otherwise inadmissible are prohibited from being
disclosed to a jury unless the evidence is more helpful to the
jury in evaluating the expert's opinion than the prejudicial
effect.

The bill also provides procedures for qualifying expert witnesses
where the opinion is based upon scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge including, but not limited to, medical
malpractice actions.

Missouri House of Representatives
94th General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session
Last Updated October 15, 2008 at 3:12 pm