721 F.3d 613
8th Cir.2013Background
- In November 2004 Paula Kingman was injured when a clothing rack struck her right shoulder, permanently limiting her shoulder lifting to 5–10 pounds; the district court awarded her $186,388.
- Calvin Kingman is a quadriplegic who, since a 1982 accident, has relied on Paula for most personal care, including lifting and repositioning to prevent pressure sores.
- After a bench trial the district court awarded Calvin $1,000,000 for loss of consortium (to pay for professional care for 15 years); this court vacated that award and remanded for reconsideration.
- On remand the district court reduced Calvin’s award to $250,000, limiting recovery to replacement of the “heavy lifting and adjustment” Paula can no longer perform, not routine care she still can do.
- Both sides cross-appealed the remand ruling; the Eighth Circuit reviews the reduced award for clear error and applies Missouri substantive law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kingman) | Defendant's Argument (Dillard's) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "heavy lifting and adjustment" performed by Paula fall within Missouri loss-of-consortium "services" | Consortium "services" includes any assistance a spouse is expected to provide under the couple's circumstances, so lifting/repositioning are compensable | "Heavy lifting/adjustment" are professional nursing services typically performed by paid caregivers and thus not traditional spousal duties for consortium recovery | Held: Yes — Missouri law includes these services when previously performed by the spouse and directly benefit the injured spouse (Calvin) |
| Whether a consortium award may exceed the injured spouse's award and whether proportionality limits Calvin's recovery | No strict proportional cap; consortium is a separate claim and may exceed injured spouse's award where factual reliance justifies it | Court of appeals’ remand required proportionality; Calvin's award should not be disproportionately larger than Paula's recovery | Held: No categorical proportionality bar; disproportionate awards are disfavored but permissible given facts (invalid spouse who previously provided extensive care); $250,000 is not inconsistent with prior opinion or Missouri law |
| Whether the remanded $250,000 award amount is supported by the record | Kingmans propose reinstatement of $1,000,000 or alternatives (trebled Paula’s award or affirm $250,000) based on Life Care Plan estimating extensive replacement care | $250,000 is excessive if it compensates for nursing tasks that are routine or duplicative of services Paula still can provide | Held: $250,000 is not clearly erroneous; record shows Paula still performs many tasks and only limited replacement (lifting/repositioning) is compensable; large multiple-aide schedules would be windfalls |
| Standard of review: whether appellate review should be de novo due to law-of-the-case mandate | Kingmans argue district court complied and amount is factual | Dillard's urges de novo review claiming the court exceeded or misapplied mandate | Held: Clear-error review applies; prior opinion left the specific award amount open-ended, so remand did not impose a precise cap |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingman v. Dillard's, Inc., 643 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2011) (prior appellate decision vacating $1,000,000 consortium award and directing reconsideration)
- Kingman v. Dillard's, Inc., 835 F. Supp. 2d 732 (W.D. Mo. 2011) (district court on remand reducing consortium award to $250,000)
- Gooch v. Avsco, Inc., 340 S.W.2d 665 (Mo. 1960) (Missouri recognizes consortium for loss of household services)
- Helming v. Dulle, 441 S.W.2d 350 (Mo. Ct. App. 1969) (consortium recovery for additional in-home services and disruption of family life)
- Pretre v. United States, 531 F. Supp. 931 (E.D. Mo. 1981) (distinguishing in-hospital duplicative care from compensable post-discharge household care)
- Riggs v. Metcalf, 315 S.W.2d 791 (Mo. 1958) (defining "services" as aid and assistance a wife is expected to render under the couple's circumstances)
- Hodges v. Johnson, 417 S.W.2d 685 (Mo. Ct. App. 1967) (noting there should be a reasonable relationship between awards but emphasizing fact-specific analysis)
- Thompson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 207 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (explaining consortium as a separate, personal claim derivative of spouse's injury)