OPINION
Jеanette G. Poage (“Mrs. Poage”) filed a products liability suit against Crane Co. (“Crane”) alleging that her husband, James E. Poage (“Mr. Poage”) suffered personal injuries and wrongful death from mesothelioma," which was caused by Crane’s asbestos-containing products. Mrs. Poage’s claims were based on Crane’s (1) failure to warn and (2) defective design under strict liability and negligence theories. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs, Poage, awarding her compensatory damages and punitive damages. Crane now appeal's arguing there was insufficient evidence to find Crane liable, and alternatively, that even if Crane could be found liable, the- amount of punitive damages should be reduced- because the award violates Crane’s due process, goes beyond “fair and reasonable compensation,” and -exceeds Missouri’s statutory cap. Additionally, Crane argues the trial court erred in failing to reduce the judgment by amounts available in the asbestos trust under § 537.060 and the common law.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
■The relevant facts adduced at trial will be discussed under the relevant points on appeal. Nonetheless, we will briefly discuss the uncontroverted factual background and the procedural history of. this case here.
Mr. Poage joined the Navy in April of 1954. From 1954 until 1958, Mr. Poage served as a machinist on a World War-II era ship named the USS Haynsworth. During, his service, he helped upkeep the valves on the Haynsworth, which required replacing gaskets and packing. Mrs. Poage alleged some of the gaskets and packing were asbestos-laden products, produced by Crane, which caused Mr. Poage to inhale asbestos dust and eventually develop mesothelioma. Mr. Poage died from meso-thelioma in May 2012. Mr. Poage was never deposed, as Mrs. Poage filed the lawsuit after Mr. Poage’s death.
On January 10, 2013, Mrs. Poage filed her petition in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court claiming that that Crane was liable to her for damages under two different theories: (1) strict liability and (2) negligence, both of which were based on defective design and failure to warn. See Magnuson by Mabe v. Kelsey-Hayes Co.,
A jury trial was held from June 23, 2015 to July 2, 2015. On July 2, 2015, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Poage, awarding her $1,500,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. On September 14, 2015, pursuant to § 537.060, the trial court reduced the compensatory award to $822,250 based on Mrs. Poage’s settlement agreements with joint tortfeasors, and it entered judgment against Crane for that amount, as well as $10,000,000 in punitive damages.
Crane then filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, remittitur, and/or an amendment to the judgment on October 14, 2015. Crane’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was based on its contention that Mrs. Poage failed to make a
Crane now appeals and is seeking' (1) “reversal of the judgment as a matter of law, or at a minimum a new trial, based upon [Mrs. Poage’s] failure to • meet her burden of proving necessary factual prerequisites of the breach-of-duty and causation elements of her claims”; and (2) reversal, or at least a substantial reduction, of Mrs. Poage’s award of punitive damages.
II. Discussion
Point I: The trial court did not err in overruling Crane’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Mrs. Poage made a submissible claim.
In Crane’s first point on appeal, it argues that Mrs. Poage failed to make a submissible claim because' (1) she failed to establish cause in fact, (2) she failed to establish proximate cause, and (3) Crane owed no duty to Mr. Poage because any gaskets or packing on the Haynsworth at the time Mr. Poage served were not manufactured or supplied by Crane. Accordingly, Crane contends that the trial court erred by denying its judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
a. Standard Of Review for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
To determine whether a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted, appellate courts apply “essentially the same standard” as a de novo review. Ellison v. Fry,
b. Available Products Liability Claims in Missouri
Under Missouri products liability law, a plaintiff has three- theories of recovery available t'o her: strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Welsh v. Bowling Elec. Mach. Inc.,
c. Strict Products Liability Claims
To determine whether a plaintiff has made a submissible case based on a strict products liability claim, Missouri applies the test set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402(A), which is codified by § 537.760. Engel v. Corrigan Co. Mech. Contractors, Inc., a Div. of Corrigan Bros., Inc.,
(1) the defendant sold a product in the course of its business; (2) the product was then in a defective condition, unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use; (3) the product was used in a manner reasonably anticipated; and (4) the plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of such defective condition as existed when the product was sold.
Strong v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
d. Negligence Products Liability Claims
To submit a case for negligence, a plaintiff must show that “the defendant had a duty to protect him from injury, the defendant failed to perform that duty, and the defendant’s failure proximately caused his injury.” Strong,
e.Causation
To make a prima facie showing of causation, a plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was “more probably than not” a cause of injury. Wagner v. Bondex Int'l, Inc.,
1. Cause in Fact
Crane’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to show its conduct was the actual cause of Mr. Poage’s injuries is based on three premises: (1) there is no evidence to show Mr. Poage was even exposed to a Crane product while on the HaynswoHh-, (2) Mrs. Poage failed to present evidence that its valves were defectively designed; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to show that an adequate warning would have prevented Mr. Poage’s injuries. Whether Crane’s conduct was the “cause in fact” of Mr. Poage’s injuries is a factual question left for the jury. In Missouri, “[w]e merely instruct the jury that the defendant’s conduct must ‘directly cause’ or ‘directly contribute to сause’ [a] plaintiffs injury” to establish cause in fact. Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp.,
To establish actual causation in Missouri, the conduct of the defendant must be a “substantial factor” in causing the injury. See id. at 862-63. Generally, the conduct complained of is a “substantial factor” in causing an injury if the injury would not have occurred “but for” its occurrence.
Mrs. Poage alleged that multiple companies contributed to Mr. Poage’s mesothelioma. Accordingly, she must present sufficient evidence that Crane’s valves were at least a “substantial factor” to submit her case to the jury. Missouri has not expressly defined how to apply the substantial factor test in asbestos cases. Chism v. W.R. Grace & Co.,
Exposure to Crane Valves
Crane acknowledges that evidence was sufficient ,to show that the Hayns-worth was equipped with valves that contained asbestos, however, they assert that “the record is silent” on which types оf valves Mr, Poage may have encountered. We. disagree. There is a substantial amount of evidence that shows Mr. Poage was exposed to. asbestos-laden Crane valves during his four year tenure on the Haynsworth.
Mrs. Poage presented, evidence that Crane sold many asbestos-containing valves and gaskets to the Navy and that such products were installed on the Haynsworth. Although no witness could recall a specific time they saw Mr. Poage working with relevant Crane products, Mrs. Poage adduced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Crane directly caused or directly contributed to causing Mr. Poage’s injuries. As discussed in the substantial factor analysis infra, Thompson testified that (1) he worked side-by-side with Mr. Poage for “almost four years of [his] life in- a “40-by-40 foot [engine] room” on the Haynsworth; (2) he worked on every valve in that engine room, including Crane valves; and (3) Mr. Poage would have worked on Crane valves as well, because Mr. Poage did everything that Thompson did. Accordingly, the evidence contradicts Crane’s assertion that there was “no evidence to show that Mr. Poage encountered asbestos-containing materials associated with a Crane valve.” Given that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Mr. Poage was exposed to asbestos from Crane valves, there was sufficient evidence to find the exposure directly caused or contributed to his mesothelioma. The jury was presented with further evidence of the causal connection when James Strauchen, M.D., Mrs. Poage’s pathology and causаtion expert, testified that all types of asbestos cause mesothelioma and asbestos exposure is the only proven cause of the disease.
We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, giving the plaintiff all reasonable inferences and disregarding all conflicting evidence and inferences.” Smith II,
Additionally, Crane contends that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to show their valves had a design defect, because there was no. evidence that using “asbestos-containing gaskets or packing” was required for the valves installed on the Haynsworth. A product is considered to have a design defect when, “a design is itself inadequate, rendering the product unreasonаbly dangerous without regard to whether a warning is given[.]” Moore v. Ford Motor Co.,
Crane cites Smith I to support its contention that when a. design of a piece of equipment is compatible for use with both asbestos-containing and non-asbestos-containing components, “there is no basis for concluding that the equipment’s design caused [Mr. Poage’s] injury.” Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 275 5.W.3d 748, 792 (herein “Smith I”). This is unpersuasive. Smith I actually supports Mrs. Poage’s position: “the defect is in the design given that the manufacturer had deliberately added or omitted the challenged component and . has presumably made that decision after balancing a variety of factors.” Id. (emphasis added). There is no dispute that Crane deliberately added asbestos-containing components to its valves before placing them in the stream of commerce. Moreover, Dr. Anthony Pantaleoni (“Dr. Pantaleoni”), the vice president of environment health antj safety for Crane, acknowledged that Crane specified the use of asbestos-containing components in its valve design, drawings for some valvés used on the Haynsworth.
Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Failure to Warn Was the Cause of Injury
For a plaintiff' to establish the cause of injury based on a failure to warn, he must show that a plaintiff would have heeded the warning and altered his behavior if an adequate warning existed. Moore,
[The plaintiff] is correct that where, as here, no warning is given,’ then evidence of what a person would have done had a warning been given inherently is hypothetical in character. Yet, to' show causation, a plaintiff must show that the absence of a warning was the proximate cause of the injury. As a matter of logic, to accomplish this a plaintiff must show that she did not have the information the warning would have imparted already and that, if she had the. information, it would have affected her conduct. This creates a ‘Catch-22’ in which the plaintiff must prove what she would have done had a warning been given to prove causation, but evidence on this issue must be precluded as speculative.
Id. at 762-63.
Missouri courts avoid this dilemma by presuming that if a product contained an adequate warning, “it would have been heeded.” Id. at 763. Nonetheless, this presumption is rebuttable. Id. Crane contends that Mrs. Poage was “required to introduce evidence that the lack of a warning on the valves caused Mr. Poage’s harm.” However, as our Supreme Court noted in Moore, Missouri helps the plaintiff mеet this evidentiary burden by presuming that a warning will be heeded. Id. at 762-63. A plaintiff is only required to show he lacked adequate knowledge of the risks associated with use of the product to receive the presumption, and this presumption “would make a prima facie case that had [the defendant] given [the plaintiff] an adequate warning, [the plaintiff] would have heeded it.” Id. at 762.
Crane attempted to rebut this presumption by arguing that Mrs. Poage presented “no evidence that Navy would have permitted Mr. Poage to accept that warning and deviate from his Navy-directed duties and work practices.” This contention is supported by Thompson’s testimony that “[o]ne thing [he] learned when [he] went to the Navy was [he had to] take orders. There was no getting out of [it].” Nonetheless, we disregard all conflicting evidence and inferences. Smith II,
Crane also argued that, even if they had placed an adequate warning on the valves, therе was insufficient evidence to show that the warning would have reached Mr. Poage. We disagree. Thompson testified that machinists like he and Mr. Poage had onboard access to manufacturer’s equipment manuals for “[e]very piece of machinery.” If Crane had included a warning in the manual accompanying the valves, there is a factual basis for concluding the warning would have likely reached Mr. Poage. Although Crane’s argument that the warnings would not have reached Mr. Poage is logical and may be persuasive to some jurors, on review, we will only reverse the jury’s decision if “there is a complete absence of probative fact to support the jury’s conclusion.” Smith II,
2. Proximate Cause
Crane argues that Mrs. Poage “failed to present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that an asbestos-containing gasket or packing associated with a Crane valve was the proximate cause of Mr. Poage’s mesothelioma.” As aforementioned, “prox
The general test for proximate cause is whether an injury is “a reasonable and probable consequence” of a defendant’s act or omission. Sanders v. Ahmed,
3. Crane’s Duties to Mr. Poage
Crane contends that Mrs. Poage’s evidence “failed to establish that Crane owed a duty to Mr. Poage” because they did not manufacture, sell, or otherwise place asbestos-containing products into the stream of commerce. Crane argues that it should not, and cannot, be held liable under a strict liability or negligence theory for another company’s manufacturing or distribution of hazardous products. It should be noted that the question of “duty” is only relevant to Mrs. Poage’s negligence claim.
Crane contends, “In Missouri, product-liability claims lie only against those entities that manufacture, sell, or otherwise place into the stream of commerce the harm-causing product,” and “[t]his is true whether the action is based in strict liability or negligence.” Crane also argues that under § 537.760 it is categorically immune to a products liability lawsuit because their product did not have a design defect and it was not unreasonably dangerous at the time it was transferred in the chain of commerce. See Feiteira v. Clark Equip. Co.,
We find Crane’s assertion misleading. Thе record shows that Crane’s corporate witness, Dr. Pantaleoni, testified at trial that Crane provided the Navy with valves that used asbestos-containing gaskets and packing for use on the Haynsworth. Dr. Pantaleoni further testified that Crane worked with the Navy to produce the Navy department master parts book, which identified the proper parts for replacement with their valves. Dr. Pantaleoni confirmed that the book called for asbestos-containing, parts for the Crane valves used by the Navy. Moreover, Mrs. Poage’s expert witness in industrial hygiene, Paskal, testified at trial that for the valves to properly function for a “full range” of applications, asbestos-containing gaskets and packing were required, not merely available. Paskal also testified that the manual Crane packaged with its valves specified the use of asbestos-containing gaskets. (See Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.
As the seller of a valve that contained asbestos-laden gaskets and packing, and the seller of a valve that required replacement asbestos-containing gaskets and packing, Crane owed its consumers, like Mr. Poage, a duty to refrain from producing “unreasonably dangerous” products as defined in § 537.760(3). A product may inherently be “unreasonably dangerous” due to its “defective condition” (§ 537.760(3)(a)) or characterized .as “unreasonably dangerous” due to the absence of an appropriate warning (§ 537.760(3)(b)). Accordingly, Crane owed Mr. Poage a duty to warn and a duty to produce products without a.defective design that created an unreasonable danger, and there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that both of those duties were breached by Crane.
4. Conclusion on Submissibility of the Case
To determine whether a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted, appellate courts apply “essentially the same standard” as a de novo review. Ellison,
The record shows that Mrs, Poage presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Crane was liable under theories of, both negligence and strict liability. Moreover, the record establishes that Crane owed a. duty to Mr. Poage to warn, Crane defectively designed its valves in an unreasonably dangerous manner, and such conduct was the proximate cause of Mr. Poage’s mesоthelioma and eventual death. Based on the foregoing,- Mrs. Poage made a submissible case to the jury, the jury had sufficient evi
Point II: Punitive Damages
Crane contends that the trial court erred in submitting Mrs. Poage’s punitive damages claim to the jury and overruling its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because: (1) Mrs. Poage submitted no evidence that Crane’s conduct was outrageous or done With “complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others;” (2) Mrs. Poage failed to adduce evidence demonstrating Crane knew or had reason-, to know that there .was a high probability that gaskets and packing associated .with its valves had a high probability of capsing injury to Navy seamen; (3) Mrs. Poage failed to establish that an award of punitive damages to her would serve such award’s intended purpose; and (4) Mrs. Poage based her claim for punitive damages, in part, on an improper request.that the jury punish Crane for alleged harm caused to third-parties (non-parties to the lawsuit). Based pn these contentions, Crane requests that we grant it a new trial.
a. Standard of Review for Punitive Damages
“Whether sufficient evidence exists to support an award of punitive damages is a question of law, which we review de novo” Blanks v. Fluor Corp.,
Two prerequisites for allowing punitive damages are (1) demonstrating some element of outrageous conduct; and (2) showing the defendant acted With a “willful, wanton or malicious culpable mental state.” Id. at 400. (citing Burnett v. Griffith,
In a negligence action, punitive damages may be awarded if the defendant knew or had reason to know a high degree of probability existed that the action would result in injury...To submit punitive damages to the jury in a strict liability case, a.plaintiff must present evidence that the defendant placed in commerce an-unreasonably dangerous product with actual knowledge of the product’s defect.
Letz v. Turbomeca Engine Corp.,
Additionally, a plaintiff must prove her claim for punitive damages by clear and convincing proof. Blanks,
The circuit court must determine whether the evidence—giving full play to the jury’s right to determine credibility, weigh the evidence and draw justifiable inferences of fact—is sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the plaintiff established with convincing ciarity—that is, that it was highly probable—that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference.
Peters v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
Because a plaintiff must establish outrageous conduct and a willful, wanton, or malicious culpable mental state, punitive damages are ordinarily not recoverable for negligence. Blanks,
A submissible case [for punitive damages] is made [on a negligence claim] if the evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom are sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude that the plaintiff'established with convincing clarity— that is, it was highly probable—that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference.
Howard v. City of Kan. City,
b. Outrageous Conduct with Indifference or Conscious Disregard for the Safety of Others and Knowledge of the Product’s Unreasonable Danger
We will address Crane’s following two arguments together: (1) Mrs. Poage failed to adduce sufficient evidence that Crane knew or had reason to know that there was a “high probability” that its gaskets would cause injuries and (2) Mrs. Poage failed to adduce sufficient evidence that Crane exhibited “complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others,” as the question of knowledge is pertinent to assessing Crane’s alleged indifference and/or conscious disregard. See Id. at 396 (explaining that “a finding of fault sufficient to justify punishment is essential to recovery of [punitive] damages,” and the absence of constructive or actual knowledge supports an inference that the conduct “was not indifferent to or in conscious disregard of the safety of others”); see also Peters,
Regarding Crane’s “knowledge,” Mrs. Poage presented evidence to establish that
1. Dr. Pantaleoni’s Testimony
' Mrs. 'Poage’s counsel called Dr. Panta-leoni as a fact witness; he is the vice president оf environmental health and safety for Crane. Mrs. Poage’s counsel asked Dr. Pantaleoni about Dr. A.M. Harvey, who worked for Crane in the late 1890’s and early 1900’s. He was Crane’s chief surgeon during that period. Dr. Pan-taleoni testified that Dr. Harvey was the “head of [Crane’s] medical department, and his responsibilities focused on worker health and safety, which included joining several professional societies and associations that dealt with worker safety, as well as monitoring the world’s literature covering developments in occupational worker safety that might impact Crane’s operations. Throughout Dr. Pantaleoni’s testimony, Mrs. Poage’s counsel produced numerous articles, and questioned Dr. Pantaleoni about Crane’s knowledge of their contents. As most of the publications cover the same, or at least very similar material, we will only mentioned a few for the sake of brevity.
. During direct examination, Mrs. Poage’s counsel asked Dr. Pantaleoni about a document received into evidence titled “Compensation for Industrial Diseases.” The document became public in 1906 and discussed the link between asbestos and lung-related diseases. Dr. Pantaleoni acknowledged that Crane was aware of the article.
Mrs. Poage’s counsel also questioned Dr. Pantaleoni-about a 1918 article from the Pennsylvania Medical Journal. The article discussed two preliminary reports on dust studies in various industries performed by doctors. The studies showed the smallest dust particles are the most likely to rea'ch the lungs of wоrkers and cause fibrosis and noted this type of dust is produced by the grinding operations of asbestos. Dr. Pantaleoni appears to acknowledge this— or at the'least provides a'non-denial— when asked “[W]hen you found out -about this, did you do' any tests to determine whether suction methods might reduce the amount of asbestos fibers someone might breathe when removing a gasket from a Crane valve?”
Dr. Pantaleoni was also asked about a document published in 1927 by the British Medical Journal called “Pulmonary Asbestos.” The British Medical Journal was publicly available. In the article, a doctor notes that people in the medical field had long suspected asbestos dust to be a cause of lung ailments for workers in badly ventilated factories. When asked if the article was “the kind .of thing that -[Dr.] Harvey was hired to monitor,” Dr. Pantaleoni responded, “I believe part of his job was to stay abreast of the literature” but he could not answer whether Dr, Harvey actually received it. Mrs. Poage’s counsel remarked that the information regarding the dangers of asbestos kept accumulating “one article after another,” to which Dr: Pantaleoni agreed, “[t]hey say the same thing over and over.”
Mrs. Poage’s counsel also questioned Dr. Pantaleoni about two articles from 1933 published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Both of these publications—Dust in Industry and The Control of Industrial Dust—highlighted the causal link between the inhalation of asbestos
2. Dr. Rosner’s Testimony
Dr. Rosner, a “historian” and Mrs. Poage’s expert witness, testified that “from 1898 to 1920 was the period when we really established that asbestos dust was a danger in the United States,” and “by 1930, it was well established.. .workers who [were] working with asbestos directly and also indirectly with products” that created asbestos dust were at risk of “potential danger.” Moreover, he stated that as early as 1906 there was “no doubt” that asbestos caused lung fibrosis.
During Dr. Rosner’s testimony, Mrs. Poage’s counsel asked about several publications submitted into evidence describing developments in the medical community linking asbestos to lung problems, most of which were also referenced during Dr. Pantaleoni’s testimony. Mrs. Poage’s counsel produced a document titled “Pulmonary Asbestosis,” a 1933 article from the Journal of Industrial Hygiene, which discussed the slow development of pulmonary asbestosis which produced “insidious” lung changes in its victims who would often be relatively free from symptoms for at least five years.
Another publicatiоn produced by Mrs. Poage’s counsel was a journal from 1936 titled “Industrial Review.” The journal was written by the Illinois Manufacturers Association, of which Dr. Harvey and Dr. Chivers (Crane’s personnel director at the time) were members. The publication discussed the Blower Act, which was a bill proposing to create workers’ compensation law, which would place a statute of limitations on claims for injuries arising from certain occupational diseases. The proposed bill would have barred workers from seeking compensation for occupational diseases unless disablement occurred within one year from the last exposure to the hazards causing the disease, unless the disease was allegedly caused by inhalation of silica dust or asbestos dust, which would extend the plaintiffs .deadline to three years from the last day of exposure. Dr. Rosner explained it was “really [an] impossible law” and “very inadequate” for victims,, as they “could not discover the disease” before the statute of limitations had expired. Dr. Rosner further added that Dr. Harvey and Dr. Chivers were named as members of the Occupational Diseases Committee of the association and the Illinois Industrial counsel; two groups that focused on lobbying efforts for employers in the industry. Additionally, Dr. Chivers was listed as a member of a subcommittee, which worked for several months drafting the Blower Act. When asked about the historical significance of the act, Dr. Ros-ner explained “industries were faced by this crisis of asbestos, and lung disease, and silicosis, and asbеstosis, during the" 30’s” and “they were looking for ways of incorporating asbestosis and silicosis into [Illinois] workers’ comp statutes” because there was “a potential great risk”, of workers. exposed to asbestos dust developing one of these diseases. He further opined:
[Industries throughout the country [such as Crane] participated in trying towrite these laws,.. [t]hey would lobby for them.. .[t]hey knew that asbestos... asbestosis and silicosis were going to be compensable diseases, and.. .they wanted to figure out ways of limiting liability. So, this just says that they understood asbestosis was a problem. There’s no way, if you’re on that committee you wouldn’t know,. .about asbestosis and silicosis being compensable diseases.”
(emphasis added).
In summation, the “Industrial Review” and Dr. Rosner’s testimony about the publication was used to show Crane was a member of the association that drafted the bill, and Crane lobbied for its passing several years after information about the latency period of asbestos-related diseases began to be developed and disseminated to the public. Dr. Rosner opined that the lobbying efforts were preceded by Crane’s knowledge of asbestos-related diseases’ latency period and knowledge that asbestos causing compensable injuries in the work place, which would lead to litigation. Dr. Rosner added that similar lobbying efforts were a widespread trend across the country among industrial employers who sought to limit their liability in, future asbestos-related claims.
Mrs. Poage’s counsel continued to produce several documents further describing the developments and medical studies which were published after 1936 but before Mr. Poage’s stint on the Haynsworth began in 1954. For example, a summary of transactions from the National Safety Congress from 1939 was produced by the National Safety Council. The foreword of the document states many members have found it beneficial to distribute copies of the publication to executives, foremen and supervisors, as it provides practical information that can be implemented in safety programs and can be used for general reference purposes. The journal included discussions about asbestos-related dust and warned that industries should be concerned about its harmfulness. Dr. Chivers was a member of the counsel which created the document. When asked if Dr. Chiv-ers would have received the document, Dr. Rosner replied, “[o]f course, yes.”
3. Paskal’s Testimony
In addition to providing evidence. of Crane’s general knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, Mrs. Poage also adduced evidence to establish Crane had knowledge that there was a “high probability” using its valves would result in injury for users of the product, such as Mr, Poage. During direct examination, Paskal testified that replacing gaskets and packing work would create asbestos dust. He further explained that replacing gaskets and scraping them by hand would expose the • worker to “about a hundred thousand ,to a million fibers per cubic meter.” Paskal also noted that the asbestos particles would linger in the air similar to cigarette smoke, which would be exacerbated by an improper ventilation system. Paskal’s ■ testimony explained replacing gaskets in Crane valves would obviously create asbestos dust. Later in the trial, Dr. Pantaleoni testified that “in most cases” asbestos-laden gaskets and packing in the valves would require replacements. Machinists like Mr. Poage would have to perform these replacements and become exposed to asbestos dust in the process.
4. Conclusion
Crane does not expressly admit to having actual knowledge of asbestos’ danger or the probability its valves would cause injury. However, circumstantial evidence alone is not a bar to recovery, and the evidence on the record supports a conclusion that Crane had actual knowledge their
A finding of actual knowledge alone is not sufficient to conclude Crane’s conduct was “outrageous” and/or committed with conscious disregard or indifference for the valve users’ safety, but it does provide suppоrt for that conclusion. See Racer,
c. The punitive damages award served the proper purposes of deterrence and punishment.
Unlike compensatory damages which' are awarded to compensate a wronged party, punitive damages “are imposed for the purpose of punishment and deterrence.” Rodriguez,
Crane primarily argues that there “is simply no conduct to deter here because Crane no longer sells asbestos-containing materials.” Although the fact Crane no longer sells the product at issue is relevant, we view the goal of deterrence through a wider lens: “punitive damages provides one of the most effective deterrents of future misconduct by a defendant or by others who may be similarly tempted to engage in [similar practices].”
Moreover; deterrence is only one of the two rationales for allowing punitive damages. -In this case, punitive damages still promote societal interests of punishing the wrongdoer for inflicting a consumer with a deadly disease. Mesothelioma is “a very painful cancer caused by exposure to as
Accordingly, the punitive damages in this case would support both purposes such an award is meant to promote.
d.. Punitive damages award was not based on an improper request to the jury to punish third-parties/non-parties.
In Crane’s final argument in support of its second point on appeal, Crane argues that the jury’s punitive damages award “was based, in-whole or in part, on alleged harm to persons other than Mr. Poage.” A defendant’s right to due process is violated when he is punished for harm to individuals or entities other than the plaintiff. Philip Morris USA v. Williams,
Remember, it wasn’t just Mr. Poage scraping . these gaskets... There were thousands of people in the Navy, outside of the Navy, all around the world, scraping these asbestos gaskets breathing that dust. They never tested. They never warned. Because they just didn’t care.
We disagree with Crane. Mrs. Poage’s closing argument abovе serves a legitimate and relevant purpose: it helps support Mrs. Poage’s contention that Crane’s “tor-tious conduct” was “reprehensible” and “evinced-an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others.” See Lewellen v. Franklin,
This is further supported by the jury instructions. Instruction No. 18 stated, “You may considér harm to others in determining whether defendant’s conduct showed complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others'. However, in determining the amount of any punitive damages award, you must not include damages for harm to others who are not' parties to this case,” Our Court presumes that, the jury follows the trial court’s instructions. Brown v. Bailey,
Furthermore, Crane’s argument regarding the closing argument has been waived. “To properly preserve an issue for an appeаl, a timely objection must be made during trial.” Stewart v. Partamian,
Based on the foregoing, we deny Point II.
In its third point on appeal, Crane advances three arguments that the trial court erred by not remitting Mrs. Poage’s punitive damages award: (1) it did not comport with principles of due process, (2) it facially exceeds fair compensation, and (3) the punitive damages award exceeds the statutory cap of § 510.265.
a. Standard of Review for Remittitur of Punitive Damages
“Generally, the decision to award punitive damages is peculiarly committed to the jury and trial court’s discretion,- and the appellate court will only interfere in extreme cases.” Smith I,
b. Due Process
“The constitutions of the United States and Missouri guarantee that no рerson, will be deprived of ‘life, liberty, or property without due process[.]’” Id. (quoting U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Mo. Const. art. I, § 10). The due process guaranteed by both constitutions “prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishment on a tortfeasor,” Id. at 145 (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
To determine if a punitive damages award comports with due process, we look at three guideposts: (1) the reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2) the disparity between the harm suffered and the amount of punitive damages awarded; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded in the case compared to the amount of awards awarded and penalties imposed in similar -cases,
The harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.
Id. (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
Using the factors described in Lewellen and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. we find there was a significant degree of “reprehensibility” in Crane’s conduct: (1) the harm was physical in nature, not just monetary; (2) the jury found that Crane had knowledge of the asbestos danger when it introduced it into the stream of commerce, which supports that Crane’s exposure of users to asbestos was not “mere accident;” and (3) Crane’s introduction of asbestos-laden products into- the stream of commerce was done regularly— this was not a singular, isolated incident.
The disparity between “the harm” and “the punitive damages awarded” is difficult to measure in a wrongful death ease. We generally use the amount of compensatory damages awarded as a proxy for “the harm” caused by the defendant. See Letz,
A punitive damages award violates due process when it “furthers no legitimate purpose and constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of property.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
“[E]vidence of a defendant’s financial status is admissible as an indication of the amount of damages necessary to punish the defendant.” Call,
“Regardless of culpability, however, heavier punitive awards have been thought to be justifiable when wrongdoing is hard to detect (increasing chances of getting away with it)[.]” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker,
In the present case, Mr. Poage suffered more than mere economic damages. Mesothelioma is a gruesome disease. Dr. Pantaleoni explained the effects it has on one’s body: “[Y]ou can have your lungs compressed so you suffocate and die, it can choke off your stomach so that you starve to death or it can choke off your throat so you can’t eat and you die.” Moreover, detecting the disease is very difficult. Dr. Arnold Brody testified that the duration of time between an individual’s exposure to asbestos until symptoms of mesothelioma occurring usually spans “20 to 80 years,” but most cases involved a latency period of “30 to 50 years” or “40 to 50 years.” In Mr. Poage’s case, he left the Navy in 1958, and he was not diagnosed with mesothelioma until September of 2011. The time between the inhalation of the asbestos dust and its manifestation of physical symptoms makes it much more difficult to deteсt the “harm.”
We do not find as a matter of law that the punitive damages award was “grossly excessive” and reached the point of “arbitrary deprivation of property.”
c. Fair and Reasonable Compensation
Crane also argues that we should remit the punitive damages award because it exceeds fair and reasonable compensation. Crane filed a post-trial motion for remittitur, which was overruled by the trial court.
“In a wrongful death case, the jury has extraordinarily wide discretion in awarding damages.” Letz,
There is no bright-line test for determining if a punitive damages award is excessive. Blanks,
(1) the degree of malice or outrageousness of the defendants’ conduct, which has been deemed a critical factor; (2) aggravating and mitigating circumstances; (3) the defendant’s financial status, as an indication of the amount of damages necessary to punish the defendant; (4) the character of both parties; (5) the injury suffered; (6) the defendant’s standing or intelligence; (7) the age of the injured party; and (8) the relationship between the two parties.
Id. at 413. There is nothing in the list of factors that leads us to conclude the trial court’s verdict was “so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience of the court.” Letz,
d. Statutory cap
Crane argues that the jury’s award of punitive damages should be vacated, or alternatively, remitted to a lоwer amount in accordance with § 510.265 because the actual award exceeds what is statutorily permissible. In Mansfield v. Horner, the Western District held that § 510.265 does not cap damages in wrongful death cases, because under § 537.090, the Missouri Legislature allows for “aggravating circumstances damages” in. wrongful death suits.
We are faced with the question of whether form (Crane’s position) or substance (Mrs. Poage’s position) should control on this issue. Historically, punitive damages ’ and aggravating circumstances damages have been used interchangeably in Missouri. Call,
The Wrongful Death Act has three objectives: -“to provide compensation to bereaved plaintiffs for their loss, to ensure that tortfeasors pay for the consequences of their actions, and generally to deter harmful conduct which might lead to death.” The last objective is the focus of section 510.090’s allowance for aggravating circumstance damages: to deter harmful conduct which might lead to death. It is logical and sound that the legislature viewed conduct leading to death as worthy of more serious consequence than other conduct.
Mansfield,
We agree with the Western District’s interpretation of § 510.265: it was constructed to allow for damages exceeding the statute’s cap in wrongful death cases. See Id. at 660-61. In fact, our Court has considered damages for “aggravating circumstances” to be subsumed within the scope of punitivе damages before. Potter v. Kley,
Based on the foregoing, we find § 510.265 is inapplicable to this wrongful death action, therefore, there is no statutory cap that limits Mrs. Poage’s damages.
Point IV: Offset for Recovery from Asbestos Trusts
In Crane’s final point on appeal, it argues Crane had a “legal right” to a reduction to the amount of Mrs.. Eoage’s judgment under § 537.060 and common law. Based on the same injuries at issue in the present case, Mrs, Poage had previously received some recovery from settlements with joint tortfeasors before the jury’s verdict. The amount of Mrs. Poage’s compensatory damages ($822,250) was reduced from $1,500,000 by the aggregate amount of money received from the joint tortfea-sors ($677,750). However, Crane .contends it is entitled to a larger setoff under § 537,060 that accounts for settlement amounts Mrs, Poage will recover in the future. In the alternative, even if this Court does not find Crane is entitled to a reduction under § 537.060, Crane implores our Court to grant an offset on “equitable grounds,” reasoning that Mrs. Crane would receive a double recovery in contravention of Missouri law limiting a plaintiff to “only. one satisfaction of the same wrong.” Moore v. Auto. Group, Inc. v. Lewis,
a. Standard of Review
There is a disagreement between the parties about the appropriate standard of review. Crane argues we should review the trial court’s denial of a motion for reduction under § 537.060 de novo, reasoning no disputed issues were submitted to the jury and the trial court ruled on the issue as a matter of law. Conversely, Mrs. Poage contends the trial court’s ruling on a setoff was “dependent on factual determinations,” requiring a more deferential review pursuant to Murphy v. Carron.
b. Statutory Offset Under § 537.060
1. Failure to Meet Statutory Requirements
Section 537.060 limits a defendant’s right to a reduction in judgment by
Interpreting a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. Nelson v. Crane,
When an agreement by release, covenant not to sue or not to enforce a judgment is given in good faith to one of two or more persons liable in tort for the same injury or -wrongful death, such agreement shall not discharge any of the other tort-feasors for the damage unless the terms of the agreement so provide; however such agreement shall reduce the claim by the stipulated amount of the agreement, or in the amount of consideration paid, whichever is greater. The agreement shall discharge the tort-feasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution or noncontrac-tual indemnity to any other tort-feasor.
Id. (emphasis added). Interpreting § 537.060, our Court explained a defendant’s burden for having the judgment against him reduced in Moore Auto. Group, Inc.:
“[I]f a plaintiff stands to recover duplica-tive damages for the same wrong, a defendant may plead an affirmative defense seeking to offset any judgment against it by any amounts already received by the plaintiff as compensation for that wrong.. .To prove a double recovery, a defendant must demonstrate an overlap between: (1) the injuries or damages for which a plaintiff has received compensation; and (2) the injuries or damages that are the subject of a plaintiffs claim against the defendant.
For a party to be entitled to a reduction of judgment under § 537.060, it must prove (1) a settlement agreement was reached, and (2) the agreement was compensation for the same injuries underlying the judgment. Crane has failed to meet its burden here. Allowing for a reduction based on unsettled claims would be speculative and conflict with the aforementioned “longstanding principle of Missouri tort law” and the purpose of § 537.060. The plaintiff would be forced to pursue her placeholder claims to recover the total amount of the judgment, while incurring additional litigation expenses which would limit her net compensation and likely prevent her from being “made whole.” Likewise, such an interpretation would restrict a plaintiffs freedom to sue and obtain judgment against all or any joint or concurrent tortfeasors. Accordingly, Crane was not entitled to a setoff pursuant to § 537.060 for potential future settlement agreements.
2. Equitable Reduction or Offset
Crane also argues we should compel a setoff against the judgment to “avoid unjust enrichment” and act in accord with Missouri’s “long-standing one-recovery-for-one-injury principle.” Although Crane states broad well-established equitable principles, it fails to cite to any authority allowing for an equitable setoff when a related statutory setoff is also available. Statutory provisions take precedent over common law equitable maxims. See Boland v. Saint Luke’s Health Sys., Inc.,
Equity courts may not disregard a statutory provision, for where the Legislature has enacted a statute which governs and determines the rights of the parties under stated circumstances, equity courts equally with courts of law are bound thereby. Equity folloivs the law more circumspectly in the interpretation and application of statute law than otherwise.
Id. (emphasis in original). “Section 537.060 codifies a subset of the common law defense of satisfaction,” and it “provides a mechanism for reducing an award of actual damages by amounts that were settled upon by other joint tortfeasors also responsible for damages and by the damaged party.” Wagner,
' The trial court did not err in failing to reduce the judgment by the potential future value of unsettled placeholder claims from asbestos trusts. Point IV is denied.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Notes
. All statutory reference are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise specified.
. All references to Rules are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2015).
. This opinion includes citations to two cases involving the same two parties: (1) Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
. Courts sometimes discuss the substantial factor test to establish actual causation, while it is other times used for determining “proximate cause.” See Callahan,
. Mrs. Poage named 104 defendants in her petition.
. At trial, Respondent introduced "the Navy department master parts book.” Dr. Pantaleo-ni confirmed that the parts book was prepared to identify , the proper replacement parts for Crane valves, and the valves directed users to use asbestos-containing gaskets and packing.
. Dr. Pantaleoni responded: "Well, no, because if you look at this document that you just gave me here, it talks about the grinding of asbestos, the milling of asbestos, those are not in our operations.”
. Scott concerns businesses engaging in fraudulent business practices as defined under Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act. There is a strong parallel between "fraudulent business practices” and unreasonably dangerous business practices in products liability actions. Both types of actions focus on protecting consumers from harmful business practices, regardless of industry.
. All references to § 510.265 are to RSMo Supp. 2005.
. Our analysis focuses solely on the first two guideposts, The third guidepost is often inconsequential” and difficult to apply. Brady v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri,
. During cross-examination of Dr. Pantaleo-ni, Mrs. Poage’s counsel introduced Crane’s 10-K which showed Crane's net sales over the three years preceding the trial: $2,579,068,000 in 2012, $2,595,281,000 in 2013, and $2,924,997,000 in 2014.
. The trial court implicitly overruled Crane's motion by failing to rule on it within ninety days of the date it was filed (October 14, 2015). See Rule 78.06 and Rule 81.05.
. All references to § 537.090 RSMo are to RSMo. Supp. 2005.
. Mrs. Poage prayed for "actual and compensatory damages" and "punitive and exemplary damages" in her petition, but the jury instructions only referred to "compensatory damages” .and "punitive damages."
. However, this is hot a proclamation that the terms are categorically interchangeable. As the Western District noted in Mansfield, "[i]t is not for [an appellate court] to sum-manly conclude that 'aggravating circumstance awards’ and 'punitive damages' are statutory synonyms.”
. This Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hosp. is a different than the previously cited case with the same parties (Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp.,