Dollens v. RSC Equipment Rental, Inc., 2:12-cv-04271

Plaintiff Kathy Dollens, a Kraft employee, fell from a Skyjack scissor lift at the Kraft Columbia, MO plant on November 25, 2008, injuring her knee and wrist.
RSC (later United Rentals) rented the 2004 Skyjack to Kraft in August 2007; RSC performed periodic inspections and a repair to a steel cylinder in August 2008 but work orders show no documented repair or replacement of the lift steps from 2006–2009.
Plaintiff testified she knew the steps were in poor condition and had used the lift repeatedly despite that knowledge; she also stated Kraft gave no direction on reporting lift damage.
Plaintiff sued in state court asserting Count I: strict products liability (defective step) and Count II: negligence (negligently supplied chattel). The case was removed; United Rentals moved for summary judgment.
The district court found disputed fact issues about the lift’s condition at delivery (precluding summary judgment on strict liability) but held the negligence claim barred by the open-and-obvious doctrine because plaintiff knew of the defect and used the lift.
A later state-court action naming the mechanic was stayed; the court denied as moot United Rentals’ motion to enjoin that state suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether strict products liability claim can proceed (Was the lift defective when rented?)	Dollens argues maintenance records and lack of charges to Kraft create a triable issue that the lift’s steps were defective when rented and not altered thereafter.	United Rentals contends the lift was rented in good condition and plaintiff cannot show steps were defective at delivery or that RSC is responsible for subsequent damage.	Denied summary judgment for defendant; factual dispute about condition at delivery precludes summary judgment on strict liability.
Whether negligence claim is barred by open-and-obvious doctrine	Dollens contends RSC should have anticipated harm and comparative fault applies; a jury should decide negligence.	United Rentals argues the defect was open and obvious and Dollens had actual knowledge, so no duty/liability in negligence.	Granted summary judgment for defendant on negligence; plaintiff admitted knowledge of the steps’ condition, so negligence claim barred.
Whether federal court should enjoin prosecution of later state-court suit	Plaintiff sought to add the mechanic as non-diverse defendant in state court; defendant sought injunction to protect federal jurisdiction.	United Rentals moved to enjoin the state suit.	Motion to enjoin denied as moot because the state court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the federal case.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment and genuine issues of material fact)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (standard on opposing summary judgment; must show more than metaphysical doubt)
Sappington v. Skyjack, Inc., 512 F.3d 440 (8th Cir.) (open-and-obvious hazard does not bar strict products liability; relevant to allocation of fault)
Fahy v. Dresser Indus., 740 S.W.2d 635 (Mo. banc) (plaintiff must show product was in substantially same condition as when sold/rented to impose strict liability)
Morrison v. Kubota Tractor Corp., 891 S.W.2d 422 (Mo. Ct. App.) (open-and-obvious danger bars negligence claims)