RSS Feed

Category Archives: Missouri economy

SB 656: Missouri’s New Statute on Carrying Concealed Firearms and Standing Your Ground

Springfield criminal defense attorney Shane Cantin has written a well-balanced article that examines Missouri’s new legislation, SB 656, “Missouri Concealed Carry & Castle Doctrine: What You Need to Know.”

SB 656 does away with the requirement of training and a permit for carrying concealed firearms. The business of concealed carry classes and permits will still go on, though perhaps with smaller enrollments.   Missourians carrying their weapons to states that require permits will need a permit from Missouri to carry a firearm in those states.

Because of the lack of necessity of attending a class and obtaining a permit, it is possible that more people will wish to buy handguns to carry. My guess, though, is that most of the people who wish to own handguns already have purchased them, and the new law will not boost sales. As young people turn 19 and thus fall under the new law, they may purchase handguns, and some of these may enjoy the hobby of collecting and trading guns. Events, such as the Orlando shooting and the election of candidates perceived as anti-gun, often spur gun sales, more than changes in state law. I wonder about how many people who once start carrying concealed firearms continue to do so.

The modification of the castle doctrine to a stand-your-ground law expands the scope of justification as a defense to the use of lethal force. The duty to first retreat and the requirement of being in one’s home or on one’s property are eliminated. While there may be an increase in shootings due to more people being armed and feeling empowered to use guns to resolve disputes and more opportunity for accidental shootings, I am not expecting there to be any substantial economic effect from the new law. The vast majority of people who lawfully carry guns will not display or use them.





Owner of philandering bull strictly liable but comparatively at fault for neighbor’s injuries

When Taylor’s bull crossed the fence, attracted by Coble’s heifers, Coble hopped on his ATV. The bull charged and the ATV flipped. The bull mounted–not the heifer–but the ATV, pinning Coble, who was seriously injured. In Coble v. Taylor, the Missouri of Appeals for the Southern District reviewed Missouri’s fencing laws to affirm that Taylor was liable for Coble’s injuries resulting from his attempt to drive the bull back home. The jury awarded damages for Coble’s injuries; however, the damage award was reduced, based on the jury finding that Taylor was 65% at fault and Coble was 35% at fault.

Under Missouri’s fencing laws, particularly section 272.030, an owner of livestock is liable for damages sustained if his animal trespasses by breaching a lawful fence.

Taylor (the owner of the bull) argued that the fence was not an “exterior” fence (one along a public road, not a fence that separates the land of two different owners), but a partition fence, and therefore was not the kind of fence that section 272.030 referred to. The appellate court stated that section 272.030 was a modern statute that didn’t follow the old common law that limited the livestock owner’s liability to injuries resulting only breaches of exterior fences, which was related to the 19th century concept of fencing out free-ranging animals, rather than fencing them in.

Taylor also argued that the he and his wife should not be strictly liable for injuries resulting from animal trespass, so that they should not be liable for injuries caused by Coble flipping his ATV. “Strict liability” essentially means liability without regard to the actions of the person who was injured. The appeals court reviewed the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 518, which is a distillation of appellate court decisions of state and federal courts, with commentary, to find that “any trespassing bull may be expected to attack and gore any other animal or any person who gets in his way.” Thus it is reasonable to expect that people will try to control the bull and get hurt doing so, and the owner of the bull should be liable.

Coble argued that the jury should not have been instructed to determine that he was partly at fault for the way he drove the ATV, which led the jury to only compensate him for only 65% of the damages that he proved. The appeals court said that the jury was properly instructed to apply Missouri’s comparative fault statute, because the Missouri Supreme Court has determined that the legislature intended for comparative fault to be applied whenever possible (other than cases of intentional injury), even though the idea of strict liability and comparative fault seem incompatible.

Missouri appeals court reverses trial court, slaps down bank that manipulated HOA

The Missouri Supreme Court, on June 30, 2015, reversed much of this Court of Appeals decision discussed in this post, reinstating the judgment of the trial court, after determining that Jefferson Bank’s amendment of the covenants was proper. The amendment removed the requirement that the HOA’s board members be residents; the Supreme Court reasoned that unanimous consent of the lot owners was not required since the nature of the amendment was to remove rather than add a restriction.

After the real estate bubble burst, many Missouri banks ended up owning a majority of lots in subdivisions, standing in the shoes of the developers–the banks’ previous customers. Banks face many challenges in their effort to sell the lots that they had to take through foreclosure; not the least is high-end architectural standards imposed by the original developer that seem unworkable in this more austere era.

Jefferson Bank & Trust found itself in this fix after it became the owner of 13 of the 18 lots in the Arbors at Sugar Creek subdivision. In 2005, the developer had recorded covenants that gave the board of the homeowners’ association (HOA) approval rights over any new construction. The owners of the five existing homes  protested when the bank and its new partner proposed to build what the homeowners characterized as “tract houses.”

Because the original HOA had been dissolved by the Missouri Secretary of State for failing to file annual reports, the bank formed a new HOA and recorded a new declaration of covenants, since it had more than 67% of the voting power, as required by the old declaration for amendment. The new declaration eliminated the old declaration’s requirement that HOA board members be residents, and the bank appointed its executives to be the new board.

After a bunch of wrangling in court, the trial court ruled that the new HOA was legitimate, that the new board acted reasonably in approving the new building plans, asking that the HOA reimburse the bank for subdivision maintenance costs paid by the bank, and awarding other damages against the lot owners.

The appeals court in this October 28, 2014 decision, agreed that the new HOA was the successor to the old HOA, but threw out the rest of the trial court’s judgment, to find that the bank acted in bad faith, having

  • relied on its acquisition of majority voting power to unilaterally deny homeowners the benefit of self-governance that they received under the original declaration
  • used its command of the subdivision’s affairs to advance in own financial interest in redeveloping the subdivision in a manner contrary to the wishes of the newly disenfranchised residents
  • violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by amending the declaration and removing the residency requirement for board members so it could appoint its own executives to the board.

Having stacked the board of the new HOA, the appeals court ruled “all the board’s subsequent actions are null and void,” including the approval of development plans submitted by the bank’s partner.

The critical factor here is the requirement of the original declaration that the HOA board members be residents. The overreaching on this issue tainted everything else that the bank did.

It’s unusual to see a court roll over a bank in favor of homeowners. My guess is that the Missouri Supreme Court will be asked to review this decision.

Damming the Osage

Damming the Osage: The Conflicted Story of Lake of the Ozarks and Truman Reservoir by Leland and Crystal Payton.
Published by Lens & Pen Press, 4067 Franklin, Springfield MO 65807, $25 postpaid.

dto-cover-720Leland and Crystal Payton, prolific authors of books with lots of photographs about the history and culture of the Ozarks and about American culture generally, have tackled the history of human use and transformation of the Osage River. Their focus is on the political and financial machinations which resulted in the construction of Bagnell Dam and Truman Dam and their impoundments in the along the northwestern boundary of the Missouri Ozarks. Their original photographs and reproductions of graphics from newspapers, maps, magazines and advertising materials, provide a collage of images of the area before and after its transformation, as well as the images created by promoters of how it might look.

The book covers the history of the residents of Osage basin, from prehistory to the present. From its origin in eastern Kansas to Bonnots Mill, the Osage flows through prairies along the northern Ozarks border into the Missouri River, at a point seven miles east of Jefferson City. Many and diverse primary sources, such as the writings of explorers and newspaper accounts, as well as the work of archaeologists, historians and other social scientists, make the book a rich trove.

The theme of book is consistent with my own take on the history of the development of North America over the past five centuries, which is that development has been driven by the opportunities created by government investment for private investors seeking wealth through the subdivision of real estate and exploitation of natural resources. George Washington was a land surveyor, as was Thomas Jefferson’s father Peter. The Washingtons, the Jeffersons and other promoters–working hand in hand with the government–used every public and private resource they could muster to carve up the Appalachian frontier and beyond into reservations, territories and states for private and public gain. Eventually, the whole country became subdivided. In the case of the valley of the Osage River, the land was divided into lake lots and condo units and multi-purpose reservoirs.

Bagnell Dam and Lake of the Ozarks

The Paytons identify Ralph Street, an “obscure Kansas City lawyer,” and Walter Craven, a mortgage banker also from Kansas City, as the fathers of Lake of the Ozarks. Street and Craven wangled a construction permit from the Federal Power Commission for the Bagnell Dam in 1924 and began acquiring options to buy land. The FPC and the Missouri Public Service Commission awarded permanent licenses for the project in 1926 to Craven, who transferred the licenses to Union Electric in 1929, after Craven failed to obtain construction financing.

Unlike other popular accounts of dam-building in the Ozarks, the Paytons pay careful attention to what existed at various times before the construction destroyed towns (Linn Creek) and roads that connected towns, cutting off neighbors from one another. The occupation by Osage Indians is described, as well as the vain attempts to modify the river to enhance navigation in the steamboat era. Later, the valley was the pathway of railroads, many of them unsuccessful. Some sites, such a Monegaw Springs in St. Clair County and Ha Ha Tonka in Camden County, were beautiful places that captured the dreams of real estate salesmen and promoters of tourism.Caplinger Mills

Once Bagnell Dam was completed in 1931, a particular flavor of tourist development was created around Lake of the Ozarks, remnants of which may be seen along the old parts of Missouri Highway 7 and US Highway 54 that have been bypassed by newer roads. The Paytons give us color and black-and-white reproductions of tourist pottery, wood carvings, fieldstone cabins, and garish billboards, as well as the intense condo development that came in the past two decades.

Truman Dam and Truman Lake

Though the Corps of Engineers had opposed the construction of dams, including Bagnell Dam, by private companies, the Corps did not have a clear legislative mandate to build dams for flood control, hydropower, and irrigation, though it had always been engaged in construction and maintenance of levees and drainage of wetlands. In 1926, Congress asked the Corps to study 180 rivers and their tributaries to examine the feasibility of federal construction of reservoirs. The Corps’ report on the Osage basin, delivered in 1933, proposed dams on Pomme de Terre, the Osage River above Osceola, and the Grand River just north of its confluence with the Osage. In 1944, FDR approved the Pick-Sloan Plan for development of the Missouri River basin, and the dams on the upper Osage were among the 107 dams authorized.

Pointing out that “Civic organizations in Warsaw, Clinton and Osceola were convinced that a dam, any dam, anywhere on the Osage would guarantee prosperity,” the Paytons designate Haysler A. Poague, a judge in Clinton, as the “stepfather” of the Truman Dam. Poague became an advocate of one large dam at Kaysinger Bluff near Warsaw, rather than the two smaller dams proposed by the Corps in 1933.

A massive flood in 1951 convinced Congress and the public that spending money to put people to work and to control and store water was worth doing; the Paytons do not point out that the most severe drought in recorded history followed the 1951 flooding, which surely added to the public support for a water project. However, funding of the project was delayed other priorities—the Vietnam War and the War on Poverty, according to the Paytons—but the land acquisition and construction began in the mid-1960s. In 1972, just as work was beginning on the dam, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Missouri chapter of the Wildlife Society, and several other organizations and citizens, including Leland Payton, filed suit in federal court seeking to stop the construction of the project.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) required federally funded projects to be preceded by meaningful environmental impact statements, giving environmentalists a tool to challenge the adequacy of the investigation of ecological impacts of projects. In the case of the Truman Dam, the opponents were concerned about the fate of the paddlefish, among other issues, and could also point out that the cost-benefit analysis provided by the Corps strained to show net economic benefits.

The final third of Damming the Osage depicts the political and legal wrangling over whether Truman Dam and its impoundment would be completed.
Missouri’s congressional delegation led by Senator Stuart Symington, members of the state legislature, and virtually all local officials, as well as chambers of commerce, supported the project, even though biologists and many farmers opposed it.

While the town of Clinton seems to have held its own, most of the Truman Lake area has continued to decline. Missourians have had to cope with the negatives. The Missouri Department of Conservation learned to raise paddlefish in hatcheries, so that they would not be extirpated in the Osage basin. Engineering oversights resulted in fish kills below Truman Dam and massive erosion below Stockton Dam on the Sac River, a major tributary of the Osage, which required additional land acquisition and bank stabilization.

During the same era, the Corps of Engineers’ will and ability to marshal support for dam projects seems to have ended. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 provided environmentalists with stronger arguments. After tremendous fights, Congress deauthorized dam projects on the Meramec River in Missouri and the Buffalo River in Arkansas, as elected officials listened to a broader swath of their constituents and began to question the wisdom of destroying the last few free-flowing rivers.

The Paytons have captured the spirit of the times the book covered. The text is thorough and the images are vivid. While Leland Payton was clearly opposed to the construction of Truman Dam, the positions of the proponents are fairly explained. Damming the Osage is an essential chronicle of how dams and reservoirs gain momentum and get built, even though they make sense perhaps for only a minority.Truman Dam

Workers’ comp reform requires judges to decide whether an injury was caused by work, not just while at work

Near the end of a workday, Jason Pope’s supervisor asked him to move a motorcycle to a showroom on an upper level of the dealership where Jason worked.  He moved the bike to the upper showroom, then tripped walking down the stairs in the dealer’s building. In the fall, he fractured his ankle, which required surgery. He was off work for nine weeks and needed physical therapy over seven months.

Jason filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was denied because Jason failed to prove to the workers’ comp judge that his injury arose (1) out of his employment and (2) in the course of his employment. Under Missouri workers’ compensation law prior to 2005, an employee injured while on the job was not obligated to prove these two factors. Under the old law, workers’ compensation was administered under “no-fault”  system, in which the employer was usually liable unless the employer could show that the injury was not real or was not related to employment.

After the denial of Jason’s claim, he appealed to the Missouri Labor and Industrial Commission, which is a special court that hears appeals of decisions of administrative law judges in Missouri’s workers’ compensation system. The Labor and Industrial Commission reversed the administrative law judge’s decision, ruling the injury to be covered by workers’ comp. The employer then appealed to the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals, which issued its affirming opinion in  Pope v. Gateway to the West.

The 2005 changes to Missouri’s workers’ comp statutes took away the presumption in favor of coverage of employee injury claims. Part of the target of the “reform” was to prevent employers from paying for injuries that may have happened at work but which were not caused by the job. For instance, when an employee was walking across a parking lot and a “pop” occurred in his knee, the injury might not be covered by workers’ compensation, since it occurred in a normal life activity–walking–not as the result of a hazard or risk associated with the job.

In another situation arising after 2005, an employee was injured in a fall as she made coffee in a breakroom at work. Her medical records indicated that the employee’s shoes caused her to fall; the court held that the employee failed to prove that her injury was caused by a risk related to her employment.

The Western District framed the issue this way:

we consider whether Pope was injured because he was at work as opposed to becoming injured merely while he was at work.

The court sifted the facts that Jason presented, noting that Jason was following instructions from his supervisor to move motorcycles into the upper showroom. When he fell, he was on his way to check with his supervisor to make sure that he was done for the day. He couldn’t reach the supervisor without walking down stairs. His boots didn’t cause him to fall. His own physiology did not cause his injury. The court concluded that these facts  (and some others)

reasonably support a finding that Pope’s injury was causally connected to his work activity, i. e., a risk related to his employment as opposed to a risk to which he was equally exposed in his normal, non-employment life.


Before the 2005 amendments to the workers’ compensation statutes, the cause of Jason Pope’s injury would not have been an issue. The employer’s insurance company would have paid the same claim that it would have ended up paying, sooner though and without two appeals.

Policy should not be made on the basis of an isolated anecdote, such as this true story about Jason Pope.  As the number of similar cases accumulates, the workers’ comp insurance industry will be in a position to determine whether the 2005 reforms save money for employers and are of a general benefit to the economy. For now, there can be no question that the burden of the reforms falls on injured employees, some of them unable to work, and health care providers which are awaiting payment.










Skills gap leaves Missouri manufacturing jobs unfilled

Manufacturing in the United States and the export of manufactured products from the United States is growing. If jobs could be filled, production and exports could rise. Nobody is opposed to products being manufactured in the US for domestic use and for export.

According to an article in St. Louis Today, citing a study by the Manufacturing Institute, with results confirmed by St. Louis area businesses, thousands of manufacturing jobs are going unfilled because of lack of qualified applicants. And technical colleges have additional capacity to provide the needed training.

After World War II, manufacturers of shoes, clothing, furniture and other products moved into the small towns and cities of the Ozarks, taking advantage of a surplus of mostly non-union, low-skilled workers. Manufacturers later arranged for their products to be made in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin American, then in Asia, seeking lower labor costs and less environmental and worker-safety regulation. Most towns in the Ozarks have vacant manufacturing facilities, even though transportation systems and location with respect to markets have never been better.

Universities and colleges are everywhere, offering all kinds of courses in residence programs and at satellite campuses, with opportunities for online education for students of all ages.

Where are the students who want to learn practical mathematics and how to operate computer-controlled design and manufacturing equipment? Some of them are in the military services. Others are working in unskilled jobs, never having become aware of their own potential to learn and earn. Others are in the gray-collar world of retail and services, where hours are long and wages and benefits skimpy.

While the St. Louis Today article blames the shortage of trainees for modern manufacturing jobs on the widespread acceptance of the value of a college education–as though the college credential had value even without skills to go with it–I’d place part of the lack of interest in manufacturing on the bad experience with manufacturing in the Ozarks. In the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, the manufacturing workers in the Ozarks experienced low wages and benefits, workplace injuries, frequent layoffs, and union-busting, ending with their abandonment (I am not forgetting that these low-wage jobs were better than no jobs and sometimes were the best jobs ever available in some communities for many people).

Manufacturers locating plants in the Ozarks asked poor communities for subsidies in the form of property tax abatement and general-obligation bond issues to for construction of facilities. Some plants polluted streams or left toxic wastes.

The manufacturing of today is much different. It’s cleaner and safer. Workers with training and skills can earn as much or more than many people who have college degrees and obtain as much or more job security. Here’s hoping that Missouri’s technical schools will be seen as the gateways to the good life, rather than an undesirable alternative to college.

Will Northwest Arkansas ramp up?

Successful businesses spawn–and depend on–other businesses. The scale of Walmart’s success has changed the face of Northwest Arkansas and spilled over to some extent in to adjacent areas. What next?

Matt Fifer and Grace Calloway sketch out a scenario of an astounding escalation in creation of opportunities for building on Walmart’s success: The Boom Ahead–Why Northwest Arkansas Could be the Next Silicon Valley.

Matt’s own career exemplifies what he’s writing about. I met Matt about five years ago, when he asked me to assist him with a small real estate deal in the Table Rock Lake area. He told me that he grew up in Stone County, Missouri, and had graduated from Reeds Spring high school. He worked for Walmart several years after college and rose through the ranks. He left Walmart not long before I met him and started a business called 8th & Walton, which teaches how to do business with Walmart. That business has grown steadily.

As this essay points out, if you can do business with Walmart as a vendor or service provider, you probably have the ability to do business with other large companies. Because so many companies located in Northwest Arkansas have honed their skills in product development and marketing by learning to do business with Walmart, the next stage may be for venture capitalists to move in and provide the funding that will allow many new efforts to succeed.

%d bloggers like this: