Quantcast

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Court lets stand $1.3 million verdict against Sho-Me Power

Trespassing1280x640

KANSAS CITY - The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied a Rule 50(a) motion filed by Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative and Sho-Me Technologies in a trespassing and unjust enrichment case. 

U.S. District Judge Nanette K. Laughery issued her ruling April 10. Rule 50(a) provides that a court "may enter judgment as a matter of law against a party after the party has been fully heard if there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for that party’s claims," according to court documents. 

The court noted in its opinion that there is a high standard for overturning a jury verdict because of the danger that the jury’s rightful province will be invaded when judgment as a matter of law is misused. It also stated that there must be a complete absence of probative facts to support the verdict.

It concluded that the defendants did not show that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find in plaintiffs’ favor as to the fair market rental value of a commercial fiber optic cable corridor.

The Sho-Me defendants were found liable for both damages and unjust enrichment for crossing the plaintiff's land to operate its commercial telephone business without first obtaining commercial telecommunications easements from the landowners. At trial, the plaintiffs were awarded approximately $79,000 in actual damages. 

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the summary judgment for the unjust enrichment case and ordered the case remanded, leaving the plaintiffs to pursue damages for trespassing. The second jury found plaintiffs’ damages for the trespass to be more than $1.2 million and awarded punitive damages in the amount of $1.3 million.

Sho-Me defendants argued the plaintiffs did not "provide sufficient evidence that the trespassing altered the market-value of their services and that it had the authority to condemn the land for telecommunications purposes," according to court documents.  

The court reasoned the Sho-Me defendants interfered with a property right belonging to the plaintiffs, who own the land at issue. If Sho-Me had properly condemned the land for commercial telecommunications purposes, the class members would have been entitled to compensation for the taking. 

 

More News