Parshall v. Menard, Inc.
4:16-cv-00828
E.D. Mo.Jun 23, 2017Background
- Menards operates a self-service store in Ballwin, MO where 8–12 foot copper "ground rods" were displayed vertically for customer self-service.
- On Dec. 23, 2014, third-party defendant Daniel Streibig removed an 8-foot and a 10-foot rod from the display, then returned them; surveillance video shows a rod fell and struck plaintiff Richard Parshall.
- There were no warning signs or handling instructions at the display; a wooden bar existed across the top of the rack.
- Parshall sued Menards for negligence; Menards filed a third-party complaint against Streibig alleging his negligent handling made him liable for Parshall’s injury.
- Streibig moved for summary judgment on Menards’ third-party claim arguing he owed no legal duty to protect another customer.
- The court granted summary judgment for Streibig, concluding no duty existed under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Streibig owed Parshall a legal duty of care | Menards: a customer handling large rods could foreseeably injure others and thus owes ordinary care | Streibig: no special relationship or statutory duty; rods were for customer handling and no heightened foreseeability existed | No duty — summary judgment for Streibig |
| Whether foreseeability of harm from handling display merchandise imposes duty on a fellow customer | Menards: handling a long copper rod creates foreseeable risk warranting a duty | Streibig: mere probability of harm from ordinary use is insufficient to impose duty on another customer | Court: foreseeability here was only a mere probability; insufficient to create duty |
| Whether policy factors (Bowan) support imposing duty on a customer | Menards: public safety and prevention of harm favor recognizing duty | Streibig: Bowan factors do not weigh in favor of imposing duty given lack of relationship and uncertain benefit | Court: Bowan factors do not support imposing a duty on Streibig |
| Whether absence of warnings or instructions at display shifts duty to other customers | Menards: lack of warnings makes injury foreseeable and supports a duty | Streibig: absence of warnings shows store permitted customer handling; does not create duty between customers | Court: absence of warnings does not by itself impose duty on another customer |
Key Cases Cited
- AgriStor Leasing v. Farrow, 826 F.2d 732 (8th Cir. 1987) (summary judgment standard and viewing facts for nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment burden rules)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standards regarding reasonable inferences)
- Lopez v. Three Rivers Elec. Co-op, Inc., 26 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. banc 2000) (elements of negligence under Missouri law)
- Bowan ex rel. Bowan v. Express Medical Transporters, Inc., 135 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (policy-factor test for existence of duty)
- Hallquist v. Midden, 196 S.W.3d 601 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (foreseeability requires more than mere probability to impose duty)