Wilson v. Image Flooring, LLC
400 S.W.3d 386
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Negligence suit in Missouri arising from a box truck rolling away from a loading dock, causing Wilson to fall and break her leg.
- Rapp (driver) and Image Flooring (employer) faced direct negligence, vicarious liability, and punitive-damages-based claims.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment on Wilson’s direct negligence claims under McHaffie; case proceeded to jury trial.
- Jury apportioned 75% fault to Image Flooring/Rapp and 25% to Wilson; total damages $1,565,625.
- Issues include whether Missouri or Kansas law applies to damages and fault, and whether Wilson’s actions could be a superseding intervening cause.
- On remand, court reversed the partial summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings; Missouri law applied for recovery issues; no error in denying N.O.V. on superseding cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Punitive damages exception to McHaffie | Wilson argues punitive-damages exception exists. | Image Flooring/Rapp argue no exception. | Punitive-damages exception exists; but summary judgment reversed due to improperly presented issue. |
| Sufficiency of punitive-damages facts | Facts sufficient to support punitive damages. | No sufficient facts; no exception warranted. | Trial court erred by ruling on this basis; remanded for proper consideration. |
| Conflict of laws—which state governs damages | Missouri residency/relationship dominate, so Missouri law applies. | Kansas law should apply due to place of injury and conduct. | Missouri law applies for compensation and recovery issues; no error in applying Missouri law. |
| Intervening cause—extenders handled by Wilson | Wilson's conduct not a superseding cause; contributory negligence for jury to consider. |
Key Cases Cited
- McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. banc 1995) (establishes rule barring direct negligence claims after admission of vicarious liability, with punitive-damages exception discussed in dicta)
- Clooney v. Geeting, 352 So.2d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) (cited regarding punitive damages pleading)
- Dibrill v. Normandy Assocs., Inc., 383 S.W.3d 77 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (punitive damages pleading requirement; must plead facts supporting punitive claims)
- City of Greenwood v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 299 S.W.3d 606 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (pleading standards for punitive damages; notice and fact pleading requirements)
- Tompkins v. Cervantes, 917 S.W.2d 186 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (intervening cause guidance; Restatement §442 factors)