196 F. Supp. 3d 1039
W.D. Mo.2016Background
- Plaintiff sued Home Depot (owner/operator) and Casco (architect) for wrongful death of husband and two children killed inside the Joplin Home Depot during the May 22, 2011 tornado; claims alleged negligent design, construction, and failure to inspect roof welds leading to premature building collapse.
- Home Depot removed the case; claims against Casco were dismissed earlier under Missouri’s ten-year statute of repose for architects/builders.
- The Joplin tornado was an extreme EF-4/EF-5 event; experts and agencies agreed building codes do not require resisting such rare tornado forces and many engineered buildings still failed under the event.
- Home Depot delegated design/construction oversight to third‑party professionals (Casco, Metzger, Anderson Engineering as special inspector); a Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 2000; many original construction records are missing or destroyed.
- Plaintiff’s theory: five design/construction errors (including failure to inspect welds) caused premature roof/wall failure, which deprived the decedents of enough time to reach a survivable area. Home Depot argued lack of knowledge, lack of proof of causal effect, and that the tornado would have destroyed the roof regardless.
- Court permitted additional discovery, heard oral argument, and decided summary judgment for defendants on all remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Home Depot breached duty by design defects | Casco’s design errors (uplift calc., diaphragm exposure, tie loads, etc.) made the building unsafe; Home Depot accepted/approved plans so liable | Home Depot delegated design to licensed professionals and lacked actual/constructive knowledge of complex design errors | No. Plaintiff failed to show Home Depot knew or should have known of latent design defects; owner may rely on hired architects absent specific knowledge |
| Whether Home Depot breached duty by failing to ensure weld inspections | Home Depot contracted Anderson as special inspector but inspection records are absent; failure to inspect increased likelihood of weld failures | Anderson and others had contractual roles; missing records do not prove inspections weren’t done; City issued certificate of occupancy | No. Insufficient evidence that Home Depot failed to obtain required inspections or that failure occurred such that a jury could find a breach |
| Causation: did any breach more-probably-than-not cause deaths? | Experts estimate the building failed seconds-to-minutes earlier than it otherwise would have; decedents were near entrance and might have reached survivable zone with additional time | Experts’ timing and wind models are speculative and imprecise; no evidence when decedents entered, what they did, or that extra seconds would have sufficed | No. Evidence too speculative/attenuated to permit reasonable juror to find Home Depot’s conduct more‑likely‑than‑not caused deaths |
| Imputation/acceptance: can Home Depot be liable for independent architect’s negligence? | Home Depot is sophisticated and accepted Casco’s work; agency or acceptance doctrines impute knowledge/negligence | Missouri law generally precludes imputing professional standards/latent defect knowledge to property owner absent non‑delegable duty or other narrow exceptions | No. Court rejects offensive use of acceptance/agency to impute architect’s latent‑defect knowledge to owner absent specific proof of owner’s notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment burden and evidence standards)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show more than metaphysical doubt)
- Reich v. ConAgra, Inc., 987 F.2d 1357 (summary judgment review standard, 8th Cir.)
- Quinn v. St. Louis County, 653 F.3d 745 (no genuine issue where reasonable factfinders could not find for nonmovant)
- Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d 222 (Mo.) (court decides applicable standard of care; jury decides breach)
- Medows v. Brockmeier, 863 S.W.2d 675 (Mo. Ct. App.) (latent defect claims require owner actual or constructive notice)
- Robinson v. Missouri State Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 24 S.W.3d 67 (Mo. Ct. App.) (causation in fact and proximate causation required)
- Freight House Lofts Condo Ass’n v. VSI Meter Servs., Inc., 402 S.W.3d 586 (Mo. Ct. App.) (permissible to infer causation from circumstances but must be reasonable)
- Dick v. Children’s Mercy Hosp., 140 S.W.3d 131 (Mo. Ct. App.) (limitations on offensive use of acceptance doctrine)
- Abrams (Mediq PRN Life Support Servs., Inc. v. Abrams), 899 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. Ct. App.) (circumstantial and expert proof of causation must have factual foundation; cannot rest on speculation)