Johnson v. Auto Handling Corp.
523 S.W.3d 452
Mo.2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Johnson, a vehicle hauler, was injured on July 3, 2007 when an idler on a Cottrell-manufactured trailer failed while he was tightening a tie-down chain; he later underwent lumbar discectomy and alleged ongoing injury from the idler accident.
- Johnson sued Cottrell (manufacturer) for negligent design, negligent failure to warn, strict product liability, and strict failure to warn; he sued Auto Handling (maintenance contractor) for negligent inspection/maintenance, negligent repair of an arc-weld, and negligent failure to warn.
- At trial, Johnson’s expert (Dr. Micklow) testified the original MIG weld was inadequate, a later arc-weld repair went only partway around the idler, and the tie-down system required excessive force; evidence suggested safer alternatives existed and industry notice may have been available.
- The trial court directed a verdict for Auto Handling on all claims and submitted negligence against Cottrell using a MAI 17.02-based instruction (Instruction 10) rather than MAI 25.09; the jury found for Johnson on negligence (Instruction 10) and strict failure to warn (Instruction 13) but for Cottrell on strict product defect (Instruction 7).
- The trial court entered judgment only on the negligence verdict (reduced for comparative fault) and denied JNOV/new trial; both sides appealed and the Missouri Supreme Court granted transfer.
- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the directed verdict for Auto Handling (as to negligent maintenance/inspection), held MAI 25.09 was the mandatory instruction for negligent manufacture/design/failure-to-warn claims (Instruction 10 was improper), and remanded for retrial of certain claims against both defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Submissibility of negligent-repair/repairer-liability against Auto Handling | Johnson argued Auto Handling made the defective arc-weld or at least failed to record/notice it, so a jury could find negligent repair or notice-based liability | Auto Handling pointed to maintenance records showing no arc-weld entry and argued no evidence established it performed the repair or created the danger | Directed verdict was improper on negligent maintenance/inspection claim (submissible). Directed verdict proper on the specific theory that Auto Handling made the arc-weld (insufficient evidence) |
| Liability of repairer/supplier to warn under Restatement §§388/403/404 | Johnson argued Auto Handling had a duty to warn because it undertook repairs/inspections and thus had or should have had knowledge of the defect | Auto Handling argued those Restatement provisions impose liability only for dangers created by the repair work itself, not unrelated design defects | Court held Restatement §§388/403/404 do not impose liability for unrelated product design defects; Johnson failed to show Auto Handling created the danger, so these provisions did not support liability |
| Proper jury instruction for negligent manufacture/design/failure to warn against Cottrell | Johnson used a MAI 17.02-based negligence instruction (Instruction 10) to submit multiple theories and evidentiary particulars | Cottrell argued MAI 25.09 (Product Liability—Negligent Manufacture, Design, or Failure to Warn) is mandatory and Instruction 10 improperly submitted evidentiary facts rather than ultimate facts | Court held MAI 25.09 was mandatory; Instruction 10 (MAI 17.02-based) was improper and prejudicial because it submitted evidentiary details and not the ultimate elements |
| Remedy and scope of retrial given overlapping claims and errors | Johnson argued errors should not require retrial of related claims or damages; some claims already failed at trial so retrial should be limited | Cottrell argued reversal of negligence verdict is automatic because strict liability design was rejected; both defendants urged limited retrial | Court held negligence and strict-failure-to-warn claims were intertwined with Auto Handling negligence; reversed and remanded for retrial of negligent maintenance/inspection against Auto Handling and Johnson’s negligence claims plus strict failure-to-warn against Cottrell (partial retrial not feasible due to interrelation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dodson v. Ferrara, 491 S.W.3d 542 (Mo. banc 2016) (standard for whether plaintiff made a submissible case)
- Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749 (Mo. banc 2011) (distinguishing strict liability and negligence in product cases; warning-heeded presumption discussion)
- Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. banc 2010) (jury instruction review is de novo)
- Morris v. Shell Oil Co., 467 S.W.2d 39 (Mo. 1971) (adoption of Restatement §388 supplier liability principles)
- Menz v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 440 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2006) (section 388 does not impose liability for product dangers unrelated to repair work)
- Newman v. Ford Motor Co., 975 S.W.2d 147 (Mo. banc 1998) (admissibility and similarity standards for prior incidents evidence)