Secrist v. Treadstone, LLC
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1458
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Accident on Nov. 3, 2008 in United Building owned by Treadstone L.L.C.; Secrist injured after bypassing elevator safety; elevator controlled without an operator; Secrist used a wire to jimmy the door and fell into shaft.
- Secrist sued Treadstone (Counts I, IV) and Johntz (Counts III) for negligence/premises liability; Mrs. Secrist sued for loss of consortium (Count VI) against Treadstone, Johntz, and L&H Renovations; L&H was not ultimately a jury party.
- Jury found Treadstone 20% at fault, Secrist 80% at fault; Johntz 0% at fault; Mrs. Secrist awarded $600; Secrist awarded $157,000 before fault reduction; trial court reduced damages to $81,500 for Secrist and $3,000 for Mrs. Secrist.
- Appellants challenge the admission of Secrist’s THC level (50 ng/ml) for comparative fault and impeachment; court permitted it for both purposes, then found admission erroneous and remanded for new trial.
- Issue on appeal: whether THC evidence was properly admissible for fault and credibility; court held improper admission for fault and impeachment and remanded; Johntz claims deemed harmless regarding fault, but remand directed for all issues against Treadstone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of THC level for fault | Secrist's THC level is relevant to fault. | Foundation lacking; level not proven to indicate impairment. | Error admitting for comparative fault; remand for new trial. |
| Admissibility of THC level for impeachment | THC evidence relevant to credibility. | Impairment evidence requires context; not sufficient alone. | Error admitting for impeachment. |
| Prejudice and remedy | Error prejudicial, tainted verdict; remand warranted. | Some evidence corroborated; harmless as to Johntz. | Prejudice shown; remand for new trial as to Treadstone; harmless as to Johntz. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Friend, 943 S.W.2d 800 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (drug impairment not same as alcohol impairment; evidence must show meaningful impairment level)
- Clarkston, 963 S.W.2d 705 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (no substantial evidence of impairment from drugs; improper if no impairment evidence)
- Jones, 322 S.W.3d 141 (Mo.App.W.D.2010) (expert proof required; mere toxicology data insufficient without behavior/effects context)
- Tisius, 92 S.W.3d 751 (Mo. banc 2002) (relevance balancing of probative vs prejudicial value in evidence)