Blunkall v. Heavy & Specialized Haulers, Inc.
398 S.W.3d 534
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Blunkalls sued MHTC, HSH, and CWF for the death of their parents in a head-on collision involving a Shomaker log truck and a Heavy/ Specialized Haulers flatbed; MHTC verdict in Blunkalls’ favor, but HSH and CWF favorable on remaining counts.
- Key liability issue centered on whether Shomaker was an employee/servant or an independent agent of CWF, affecting vicarious liability under agency principles.
- Trial court refused Blunkalls’ verdict-directing Instructions A and B which framed Shomaker as CWF’s agent; the court gave MAI-based instructions that described Shomaker as an employee.
- During voir dire, Blunkalls questioned jurors about damages and potential verdict levels; objections to the targeted questions were sustained or not, affecting preservation.
- Instructions 13 and 20 (finding Shomaker was CWF’s employee within the agency scope) were given, while Instructions A and B (agency-based) were not; the jury found all fault to MHTC and awarded damages.
- The court remands for new trial on CWF’s liability only, while damages on all counts remain affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failing to submit agency-based verdict directors was error | Blunkalls sought Instructions A/B (agency) | CWF argued MAI controls and changes were improper | Yes, error; remand for new trial as to CWF only |
| Preservation of converse instructions 12 and 19 | Not preserved; error matters tied to A/B | Objections not preserved per Rule 70.03 | Not preserved; denied Point IV |
| Preservation of HSH closing-argument issues | Closing arguments prejudiced; preserved | No proper objections; not preserved | Not preserved; denied Points V–VI |
| Voir dire questions about damages and large verdicts | Questions relevant to damages and potential bias | Court properly controlled voir dire | No abuse of discretion; not prejudicial |
| Impact of erroneous instructions on damages and liability | Errors affected liability determination | Damages unaffected; issues separable | Liability remanded; damages affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. banc 1995) (employer liable for employee/agent within course and scope; agency principles apply)
- Bach v. 257 S.W.3d 608, 257 S.W.3d 608 (Mo. (2008)) (agency and control establish liability; distinguish agent vs servant)
- Douglas v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Nashville, Tenn., 236 Mo.App. 467, 155 S.W.2d 267 (1941) (definition of servant and control in agency relationships)
- Glidewell v. S.C. Management, Inc., 923 S.W.2d 940 (Mo.App. S.D. 1996) (modification of MAI 18.01 discussed; modification permissible under Rule 70.02(b))
- Agri Process Innovations, Inc. v. Envirotrol, Inc., 338 S.W.3d 381 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (agency issue; MAI modification guidance)