340 S.W.3d 275
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- In a wrongful death action, Kampert Estates and family sued Superior for James Kampert's death arising from a mine-truck incident.
- Kampert borrowed Superior's water truck from Superior's property to water mine roads after Hunt Martin's water trucks were inoperable.
- Kampert drove the truck from Superior's property onto Hunt Martin property and attempted to drive it underground in a steeply inclined mine road, losing control.
- Kampert died when he jumped from the truck and was run over; plaintiffs alleged Superior’s brake maintenance and leaving keys in the truck were negligent.
- Superior claimed its brakes were properly maintained and Kampert was negligent for taking the truck into the mine.
- At trial plaintiffs proposed a verdict director (Instruction No. 7) with 'directly caused or directly contributed to' language; Superior proposed Instruction No. 8 with similar language but framed around Kampert’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conflicting verdict instructions caused plain error requiring a new trial | Kamperts contends inconsistency between MAI-based instructions created prejudice. | Superior argues no prejudice since each instruction standalone proper. | Yes; conflict caused jury confusion justifying a new trial. |
| Whether the Kamperts invited the error by submitting Instruction No. 7 | Kamperts submitted MAI-based instruction not expressly improper when read with others. | Kamperts cannot complain when they themselves submitted the instruction. | No barred error; the combination of otherwise proper instructions caused plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- MFA Oil Co. v. Robertson-Williams Transp., Inc., 18 S.W.3d 437 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (plain error standard for reviewing jury instruction error)
- Moll v. Gen. Automatic Transfer Co., 873 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.App. E.D.1994) (need for evidentiary support to show prejudice from instruction)
- Parsons Constr. Co. v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Co., 425 S.W.2d 166 (Mo.1968) (party cannot complain of error in instructions they submitted)
- Harrington v. City of Sedalia, 12 S.W.342 (Mo.1909) (historical/early authority on instruction error)
- Beeny v. Shaper, 798 S.W.2d 162 (Mo.App. E.D.1990) (limits on objections to jury instructions)
- Schisler v. Rotex Punch Co., 746 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.App. E.D.1988) (consistency requirement for MAI-based instructions)