Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog

As a Missouri personal injury attorney, I sometimes handle “slip and fall” cases involving people who were hurt by dangerous conditions on other people’s property. This is often but by no means always on property open to the public, such as a store or restaurant. The injuries in these cases are frequently more serious than they sound, because a hard fall can mean a back, neck or head injury that can have permanent effects on the victim’s life. In Roderick v. Wal-Mart Stores, Bonnie Roderick sued after she slipped in a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Marysville, Missouri, which ultimately required a hip replacement surgery to fix. At trial, she lost in several disputes over what evidence to admit, and eventually the jury found against her. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately declined to order a new trial.

Roderick tripped on a rug that had one corner turned up “just enough to catch your toe.” The fall broke her left hip, requiring surgery and rehabilitation, but the screws used in the first surgery ultimately failed, requiring a total hip replacement and more physical therapy. A year later, Roderick fell again; she alleges that this fall was caused by a dropped toe caused by the Wal-Mart fall This fall necessitated a third surgery and a stint in a wheelchair, and created severe personal limitations like a need for help when going to the bathroom and an inability to care for her husband (who had been in a nursing home) before his death. She sued Wal-Mart over the slip and fall accident, but the jury found against her. In her motion for a new trial, she said Wal-Mart’s expert medical witness should not have been admitted; she should have been permitted to raise evidence of prior falls on the same rug; and defense statements about the character of the Wal-Mart’s manager. This was denied and she appealed to the Eighth Circuit.

That court found for Wal-Mart on all of the issues raised. On the medical testimony, Roderick alleged that Dr. Simon (no first name given) prepared a report on her condition that did not meet evidentiary requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that his testimony was frequently irrelevant or incorrect. However, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the trial court that any error from this was not enough to affect the jury’s decision. The report was not admitted into evidence at all, it noted, and Roderick failed to raise her objections for more than a year after it was made. On the rug issue, Roderick raised evidence found during discovery that the store pulled up that rug after her fall because it was the second fall in the area. She wished to use this to rebut testimony on cross-examination but was denied. The Eighth agreed that the incidents were not similar enough to use as impeachment of the witness or support the idea that Wal-Mart had notice of the danger. Finally, the court agreed that the closing-argument statements, which the court sustained Roderick’s objection to, were not prejudicial.

This verdict is disappointing for Roderick, of course, but as a St. Louis slip and fall accident lawyer, I appreciate the chance to show readers what the repercussions of a serious trip can be. The phrase “slip and fall” sounds like it could lead only to trivial injuries, but even a broken bone can have permanent or long-term effects on the victim’s health. In this case, the circumstances suggest that Roderick was an older woman at the time, and breaking a hip is a serious health event for older people because it has the potential to leave them permanently disabled and dependent on others for help. Other slips and trips can lead to chronic pain, spinal injuries or even head injuries with permanent disability. As a southern Illinois premises liability attorney, I document these cases thoroughly so I can demonstrate their seriousness to the jury.

Continue reading "Eighth Circuit Upholds Denial of New Trial in Missouri Slip and Fall Injury – Roderick v. Wal-Mart Stores" »

One truism of my work as a Missouri injury lawyer is that most of the time, people injured at work may not sue their employers. Most workplaces are covered by workers’ compensation laws, which means the exclusive remedy for such people is to claim workers’ compensation payments. This can cause fights with insurance companies, but it may allow workers to get compensation without filing a lawsuit. However, when the workplace injury happened on the premises, or because of the actions, of a third party, workers may be able to sue instead of or in addition to claiming compensation. That was the situation in Howsden v. Roper’s Real Estate Co., in which Darlene Howsden was injured at her workplace. The premises were not owned by her employer, but a related entity, and the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Howsden may sue that entity.

Howsden worked at a funeral home that was purchased by Roper & Sons Inc., another funeral home. For business and tax purposes, all real estate operated by Roper & Sons is owned by Roper’s Real Estate Company. Howsden’s workplace was in an older building, which had an old-fashioned elevator that connected two hallways on the same floor. The elevator was rarely used to travel between floors, but employees would use it to move between the two hallways. Howsden was seriously injured after she entered the elevator, expecting it to be on her floor, and fell through the empty shaft to the basement. She successfully claimed workers’ compensation benefits through the employer’s insurer, which covered her employer, Roper & Sons and Roper’s Real Estate. She then filed a lawsuit alleging that negligence by Roper’s Real Estate caused the injury. The trial court ultimately granted Roper’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Howsden’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation

On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed that decision. Howsden’s cse presents an unusual situation because her employer was not Roper’s Real Estate, the defendant — it is Roper & Sons. Roper’s argued that the entities should be considered under the dual capacity or dual persona doctrines. Those doctrines are not applicable, the court said, because the two Roper entities are not the same company — they are separate legal entities that have the same board of directors. Indeed, it noted, courts in many other jurisdictions have declined to collapse this kind of separate legal entity format into one entity for workers’ compensation purposes. “One cannot claim the benefits of incorporation without the burdens,” the court noted. Furthermore, courts have generally declined to pierce the corporate veil except in cases of fraud, and the Nebraska Supreme Court agreed. Thus, it reversed the lower court and remanded the case.

As a St. Louis personal injury attorney, I appreciate that the high court declined to protect the company from litigation in a situation that would offer zero protection to another separate entity. As the court noted, the benefits of incorporating separately come at the price of the responsibilities and liabilities of the separate entity. This situation may be more common than employees think, since it’s not uncommon to have different legal entities operating different parts of what looks on the outside like the same business. This offers more opportunities for relief to people who are injured on the job, since workers’ compensation can be difficult to claim when the employer or its insurer won’t play fair. Workplace injury lawsuits like Howsden’s are simpler to pursue with the help of an experienced southern Illinois accident lawyer, even if they are more time-consuming by design.

Continue reading "High Court Finds Worker May Sue Company Related to Her Employer After Injury – Howsden v. Roper’s Real Estate Co." »

Here in Missouri, we follow a legal doctrine called pure comparative negligence that can have important consequences for people with serious personal injuries. In my work as a St. Louis personal injury attorney, I am frequently asked whether it matters that the injury was partly the fault of the injured person, and of course this is a defense to an injury lawsuit. Fortunately, our state allows financial recovery even when you are partly at fault; your financial damages will simply be reduced according to the amount of fault you bear. In Arkansas, this is only true if the injured person is 49 percent or less at fault; a greater proportion of fault means the victim cannot recover at all. That led to protracted litigation in Dupont et al. v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, a decision by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving a woman’s injury from falling bins at a retail store.

Paula Dupont asked an employee at Fred’s Stores in Holiday Island, Ark., to get some plastic bins off the top shelf so she could look at them. She decided not to buy them and moved into other parts of the store, but returned later. That’s when she says the plastic bins fell from the top shelf onto her head, causing a concussion and strain to her neck. She did not describe the incident in detail, but store employees felt it was necessary to have a friend pick her up from the store. The Duponts allege the concussion caused personality changes, depression and continuing problems with memory, concentration and focus. They sued Fred’s Stores for premises liability and failure to adequately train its employees. Before trial, the Duponts unsuccessfully moved to exclude all evidence of Paula Dupont’s possible contributory negligence, arguing that Fred’s Stores was not pleading contributory negligence and there was no evidence that she had been negligent. The district judge allowed the store to cross-examine Paula Dupont on the issue. He also allowed jury instructions that included the possibility of contributory negligence, over their objections. The jury found for Fred’s Stores and the Duponts appealed the contributory negligence issues.

On appeal, the Duponts argued that Fred’s Stores forfeited a contributory negligence defense by failing to plead it before the deadline to amend had passed. The Eighth Circuit agreed to a point. But it said failing to raise a contributory negligence defense does not bar a defendant from introducing any evidence related to the plaintiff’s behavior. Thus, denying their pretrial motion was not an abuse of discretion. It next turned to the jury instructions issues. The Duponts had proposed to instruct the jury on a theory of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”), which was rejected, and objected fruitlessly to jury instructions 16, which was inconsistent with res ipsa loquitur, and 14, which implicated contributory negligence. The Eighth said the district court was correct to reject the res ipsa loquitur instruction, because it was not clear that Fred’s Stores had exclusive control over the plastic bins; any customer could have disturbed them. For the same reason, it rejected arguments about instruction 16. Finally, the appeals court said instruction 14 may or may not have been erroneous, but it was ultimately harmless. After all, the instruction did not prevent the jury from finding that Fred’s Stores was ultimately completely responsible. Thus, it affirmed all of the district court’s rulings. Judge Melloy dissented, arguing that instruction 14 was in clear error under Arkansas caselaw, and that the store could have foreseen that another customer might disturb the plastic bins in an unsafe way.

As a Missouri premises liability lawyer, I agree with this dissent. The legal doctrine of premises liability — which gives businesses a responsibility to ensure their premises open to the public are safe — requires employers to take action on reasonably foreseeable risks. This means things like clearing ice off a front walkway, but no obligation to guess that something unusual and unsafe might happen. I agree with the judge that it is reasonable to guess that customers might disturb items on any shelf, even a top shelf, and that heavy items stored on high shelves might end up disturbed in an unsafe way. Thus, the underlying safety issue was still in the control of the store. As a southern Illinois slip and fall attorney, I represent clients from many backgrounds who were injured on someone else’s property, and control over the underlying safety hazard is always, always an issue.

Continue reading "Juries May Consider Plaintiff’s Conduct Even When Contributory Negligence Not Pleaded – Dupont v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee" »

A recent news story from Kansas City about a frightening accident at an elementary school caught my attention s a Missouri personal injury lawyer. A six-year-old boy was nearly smothered in an inflatable obstacle course at a school carnival. The Kansas City Star reports that he remained hospitalized the day after the incident occurred. This story is important because it incident reminds us that young children need careful supervision at all times: unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death among all children over age one in the United States. I hope that this child will recover quickly and fully, and that the school and the company that provided the inflatable play area think carefully about making sure children stay safe while they're at a school event.

Fun Services of Kansas City provided an inflatable obstacle course and other play equipment for the school carnival at Lakewood Elementary School on May 13. Police learned that two children approached a Fun Services employee around 8:30 p.m. to inform him that the boy was stuck between two parts of the obstacle course. Meanwhile, the mother of the boy had approached a Fun Services employee to say that two older children were playing inappropriately on the obstacle course, and that she had disciplined them herself. It was then that the employee told her that a child was not breathing, and she found out that it was her own son. A Fun Services employee pulled the boy out and Clay County sheriff's officials who were at the carnival performed CPR. The boy did begin to breathe on his own, but on the ambulance ride to Children's Mercy Hospital, his condition grew worse and he had to be ventilated when he arrived at the hospital. A letter sent to parents the next day from school principal Suzanne Baker said that his condition had improved, but he remained hospitalized.

This situation would be frightening for any parent, but other details described in the news report give me pause too, as a St. Louis personal injury attorney. I'm wondering whether anyone was specifically asked to supervise the children in the inflatable play areas. School carnivals can be very chaotic and noisy, making it all the more important that responsible adults plan out in advance who will make certain that the children stay safe. The district undoubtedly had its own safety policies before this incident, and now, it has instituted a new policy requiring that this type of play equipment be inspected and pre-approved by the central office. Fun Services said that their employees always followed safety regulations and maintained their equipment so that it was in safe condition. But the fact that it was up to the two children to report that the boy was stuck in the inflatable obstacle course raises questions about whether the employees and the school district really did follow all safety procedures that they reasonably should have.

Continue reading "Six-Year-Old Boy Nearly Smothers in Inflatable Play Area at School Carnival" »

A Joplin man sued The Bunker Extreme D-Day Adventure Park over severe injuries he sustained at a truck and bike rally when an off-road truck drove through a safety barrier and into the audience, the Joplin Globe reported July 31. Joel Fulton was one of five people who were hurt July 25, after the driver of the truck lost control while driving through a mud pit, plowing through a safety barrier and into spectators. The crash also killed Asami Fujita of Guam and injured Tony Rockrohr of Granby; Kevin Wallace of Carl Junction; and Joanne Sweet of Neosho. The newspaper did not specify any of their injuries.

The park is an outdoors-focused park in Wyandotte, OK, offering paintball and off-roading on motorcycles, trucks and ATVs. According to the lawsuit, Fulton planned to participate in the off-road rally. He and others were lined up on top of the safety barrier for a photo at the request of the park’s owner, Dewayne Convirs, when driver Johnny Davis lost control of the truck and crashed into the barrier. In the resulting accident, the lawsuit says, he suffered massive body trauma leading to permanent injuries. He and his wife, Angela Fulton, are suing the park, Convirs and Davis for negligence, including negligence by the park for failing to take sufficient safety precautions and negligent operating of the truck by Davis.

A lot of people believe that parks and other public places wouldn’t be open to the public if they weren’t safe. As a Missouri personal injury attorney, I’m afraid I know otherwise. It’s true that property owners have a legal obligation to prevent foreseeable injuries to people who are on their property legally, including customers and invited guests. If there is a safety hazard, property owners must clear it within a reasonable amount of time or post a warning sign. However, in many cases, property owners fail to meet that legal obligation, due to carelessness or cost-cutting. When this leads to a serious accident, as in this case, victims have the right to hold property owners legally responsible for their injuries with a Missouri personal injury lawsuit.

Continue reading " Missouri Man Sues Park Over Injuries From Truck Crash Into Spectators" »

A couple days ago I saw a story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about a wooden deck that collapsed when about 20 women got on it to pose for a picture at a wedding shower. The women fell approximately 10 feet, and nine of them were hurt to varying degrees. The injured were taken to hospitals near Wildwood, where the incident happened -- apparently one of them was even flown in by helicopter. The women's injuries included broken bones, cuts and bruises, and serious internal injuries.

This story is interesting to me as a St. Louis personal injury lawyer, as a possible example of a legal theory called premises liability. Of course, we don’t know from the article, but perhaps they had not properly maintained their deck. Of course, 20 sounds like it may be a lot of people to have on a backyard deck, and it may simply have been overloaded. If it turns out that the homeowner had maintained the deck poorly, or negligently and knowingly allowed too many guests on it, she could be liable in a Missouri premises liability lawsuit.

If you have been injured on someone else’s property and you believe it was caused by that person or organization’s carelessness, you should consult a legal professional who specializes in accidents similar to yours and understands the law. In this case, that would be a Missouri personal injury attorney like me. That lawyer could then help the injured parties find out exactly what their rights are.

Based in St. Louis, The Lowe Law Firm handles personal injury lawsuits for people throughout Missouri and southern Illinois. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured because of someone else’s negligence, our St. Louis personal injury lawyers would like to help. We offer free, confidential consultations, so you can learn more about your rights and your claim with no risk or commitment. To set up an appointment, please contact us online or call toll-free at 1-877-678-3400.