Negligence: Allergic Reaction-Comparative Fault-Jury Instructions

Where a man, who sued a restaurant after he suffered an allergic reaction to seafood, challenged the grant of judgment for the defendant, arguing that the trial court erred by improperly instructing the jury on comparative fault, the court did not commit instructional error since the plaintiff did not properly preserve his claim and the comparative fault instructions were supported by substantial evidence, and the judgment is affirmed because the court also did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the plaintiff’s symptoms after he left the restaurant or by overruling the plaintiff’s objection to the defendant’s closing argument that referred to the lack of medical bills in evidence

Judgment is affirmed.

Denney v. Syberg’s Westport, Inc. (MLW No. 79717/Case No. ED110498 – 20 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Hardin-Tammons, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Dodson, J. (Matthew T. Nagel for appellant) (Chandler D. Atkins and Joseph M. Morris for respondent).