Coin Acceptors, Inc. v. Haverstock, Garrett & Roberts, LLP

GLENN A. NORTON, Judge.

I respectfully dissent.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment

As to Coinco’s '719 clams, the majority concludes that summary judgment was proper because Mr. Browne’s expert testimony was purely speculative and insufficient to create a triable issue on the element of causation. It is important to emphasize that a defendant’s negligence is a question of fact for the jury to decide, not a question of law for the court’s determination. Roberts v. Sokol 330 S.W.3d 576, 581 (Mo.App. S.D.2011). Moreover, Missouri law holds that, except in clear and palpable eases, expert testimony is…