Section 9.17 Interrogatories

• Library: Sources of Proof (2014 Ed.)

1. (§9.17) Interrogatories

The reason that interrogatories are a useful way to avoid surprise at trial is that an interrogating party has a right to rely on the truthfulness and completeness of responses to interrogatories. Simply put, facts or evidence may not be concealed from a party and then used at trial. See Combellick v. Rooks, 401 S.W.2d 460 (Mo. banc 1966). A failure to identify information in answers to interrogatories can be a basis for prohibiting the evidence. See, e.g.:

· McClure v. McIntosh, 770 S.W.2d 406 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989)

· Sample v. Witt, 712 S.W.2d 394 (Mo. App. W.D. 1986)

· Will v. Carondelet Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 508 S.W.2d 711 (Mo. App. E.D. 1974)

· Everett v. Morrison, 478 S.W.2d 312 (Mo. 1972)

· Mo. State Park Bd. v. McDaniel, 473 S.W.2d 774 (Mo. App. S.D. 1971)

The rule is not overly strict, and witnesses have been allowed to testify despite omissions in interrogatory answers because the opposing party knew of the existence of a witness or evidence through other means, or the witness was one that normally would have been known or interviewed by the party. See:

· Rule 56.01(e); Campbell v. Tenet Healthsystem, DI, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (the failure to formally supplement an interrogatory answer was not sanctionable when the information was disclosed in a deposition)

· Hertz Corp. v. Raks Hospitality, Inc., 196 S.W.3d 536, 545 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (upheld the trial

...