## Facts

- David and Donna McDowell, contractors, built a residence for the Schuettes under a construction agreement and later claimed the Schuettes failed to pay the full amount due.
- The McDowells sued to recover the remaining balance allegedly owed for the completed house.
- The Schuettes filed a counterclaim, alleging the house was defectively constructed and seeking damages.
- At trial, the parties presented conflicting testimony about the condition of the house, including disagreement among expert witnesses about whether claimed defects existed and their significance.
- To help the jury evaluate the disputed testimony about the house’s condition, the trial judge ordered a jury view of the premises.
- The judge arranged for jurors to be driven to the property by van and instructed jurors not to discuss the premises or the case during the trip or the view, either among themselves or with the driver.
- The judge did not permit the court reporter or the parties’ lawyers to accompany the jurors during the view.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the McDowells, rejecting the Schuettes’ counterclaim.
- After the verdict, the Schuettes’ counsel learned the van used to transport jurors was owned by the McDowells and was driven by one of their employees.
- The Schuettes sought a new trial, arguing the view was “evidence” taken outside the presence of counsel and the court reporter and that use of a McDowell-owned van and employee driver was improper; they produced no evidence that jurors spoke with the driver, knew who owned the van, or were otherwise influenced.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by conducting a jury view of the premises without the court reporter and counsel present, on the theory that the view constituted unrecorded “evidence.”
2. Whether transporting jurors to the view in a van owned by the prevailing party and driven by its employee required a new trial absent proof that jurors knew of the relationship or that improper communications occurred.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the McDowells.
- The court held that, under Missouri practice, a jury view—when properly controlled—is not evidence in the ordinary trial sense but a method to help jurors understand and weigh the testimony received in court.
- Because the view served that limited function, the absence of counsel and a court reporter during the view was not, by itself, reversible error.
- The court found the trial judge acted within allowable trial management discretion by ordering the view given the sharply conflicting testimony about alleged defects.
- The court held that use of a van owned by the McDowells and driven by their employee did not justify a new trial where the jurors were instructed not to discuss the case, and the Schuettes offered no proof of juror-driver communications, juror knowledge of ownership or employment, or any resulting prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- A jury view of premises may be authorized to assist jurors in evaluating testimony about physical conditions; it is not treated as independent evidence that must be transcribed like in-court testimony.
- The decision to allow a jury view, and the manner in which it is conducted, generally rests with the trial court; reversal requires a showing that the court’s choice caused prejudice.
- Alleged irregularities connected with a jury view (including transportation arrangements) do not warrant a new trial without proof that the irregularity probably affected the verdict.
- A mere opportunity for improper influence is insufficient; the complaining party must show facts indicating improper communication, juror awareness of the complained-of relationship, or other circumstances supporting prejudice.

## Conclusion

McDowell v. Schuette affirmed a verdict for the contractor-plaintiffs, holding that the jury’s inspection of the house was a court-controlled tool to help evaluate conflicting trial testimony rather than unrecorded “evidence,” and that the post-verdict discovery that jurors were transported in a van owned by the plaintiffs and driven by their employee did not require a new trial without proof of improper contact or prejudice.


McDowell v. Schuette, 610 S.W.2d 29 (1980)