Modifies provisions relating to civil procedure, including the collateral source rule, determinations of fault, references to damages, and disclosure requirements
The implications of SB 314 are significant, especially in personal injury and tort cases. By regulating the types of evidence that can be introduced in court, the bill aims to ensure that jurors focus on straightforward, verifiable costs rather than potentially inflated billed amounts. This could lead to lower damage awards for plaintiffs, as jurors will not be influenced by the higher figures that are sometimes presented during trials. Additionally, the bill outlines a clearer framework for determining the fault among multiple parties in tort cases, which is poised to improve the efficiency of resolving such litigations.
Senate Bill 314 modifies various provisions related to civil procedure in Missouri, specifically addressing the collateral source rule, fault determinations in tort actions, and the manner in which damages are requested. The bill repeals existing sections 490.715, 537.060, and 537.067, replacing them with new provisions that aim to streamline the judicial process in tort cases. A primary aspect of SB314 limits the introduction of evidence regarding the amount billed for medical care, allowing only the actual cost of treatment to be presented in court. This is intended to prevent skewing the jury's perception regarding the valuation of medical care provided to plaintiffs.
However, the changes proposed in SB 314 have sparked debate among legislators and stakeholders. Critics argue that limiting the evidence to only 'actual costs' could disadvantage plaintiffs, particularly in complex medical cases where billed amounts may be higher than the actual payment due to contractual agreements. This could potentially undermine their recovery rights. Furthermore, the new rules on fault determination may lead to disputes about the apportionment of fault and financial liability, complicating cases where multiple parties are involved. Advocates for tort reform contend that these modifications will reduce overall litigation costs and biases in jury awards, yet these benefits are hotly contested by those concerned about fair compensation for injured parties.