Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc.
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 567
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Wrongful death actions arise from a 2006 Twin Otter crash, FAA Part palabras; aircraft engine failure attributed to contractor CT-blades.
- CT-blades were replaced with SermaLoy J coating and Inconel-738 base metal, differing from original PWC specification.
- Plaintiffs allege Doncasters’ CT-blades were defectively designed/materials, causing engine failure and decedents’ deaths.
- Trial court bifurcated into two phases due to discovery sanctions: compensatory liability/damages first, punitive damages second.
- Phase I verdict: $20 million in compensatory damages total ($4 million per wrongful death claim).
- Phase II verdict: $28 million in punitive damages total; trial court allocated $5.6 million punitive per death claim; Doncasters appeals; Plaintiffs cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-impact terror damages were properly permitted | Delacroix argues 537.090 permits pre-impact pain/suffering. | Doncasters contends only post-injury pain is recoverable. | Instruction proper; pre-impact terror recoverable under 537.090. |
| Whether denial of mistrial for improper evidence was an abuse of discretion | Pls claim ruling allowed prejudicial evidence improperly. | Doncasters contends curative measures were insufficient. | No manifest abuse; curative instruction cured harm. |
| Whether there was substantial evidence to submit compensatory damages | Plaintiffs presented defect evidence linking CT-blades to crash. | Doncasters argues lack of defect evidence at time of sale. | Substantial evidence supported defect and causation; denial of directed verdict/JNOV affirmed for compensatory damages. |
| Whether FAA certification evidence was admissible | FAA certification could rebut defect claims. | Certification admissible to prove non-defectiveness or rebut Plaintiffs’ evidence. | Exclusion as substantive proof not clearly erroneous; no abuse; rejection of FAA-cert as rebuttal evidence also affirmed. |
| Whether the discovery sanction bifurcation was proper | Sanction appropriately limited late-produced documents to avoid prejudice. | Bifurcation violated statutory MAI 35.19/section 510.263 procedures. | Sanction justified; bifurcation affirmed; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blum v. Airport Terminal Serv., Inc., 762 S.W.2d 67 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988) (pre-impact distress may be compensable under 537.090)
- O’Grady v. Brown, 654 S.W.2d 904 (Mo. banc 1983) (remedial statutes construed broadly to effect their purpose)
- Lay v. P & G Health Care, Inc., 37 S.W.3d 310 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (compliance standards do not negate strict liability duties)
- Sanders v. Ahmed, 364 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. banc 2012) (burden to prove settlements for reduction under 537.060)
- Ozark Air Lines, Inc. v. Valley Oil Co., L.L.C., 239 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (affirmative defense of reduction requires proof at trial)
- Peters v. General Motors Corp., 200 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (punitive damages require knowledge of the specific defect)
- U.S. Gypsum Co., N/A (N/A) (reference noting punitive-damages standards in asbestos context)
- Sparks v. Consolidated Aluminum Co., 679 S.W.2d 348 (Mo. App. 1984) (evidence of other claims insufficient to prove specific knowledge)