Hopfer v. Neenah Foundry Co.

• Decision Date: 22 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. ED 101754,ED 101754
• Citation: 477 S.W.3d 116
• Parties: Norman Hopfer and Terri Hopfer, Appellants, v. Neenah Foundry Company, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

477 S.W.3d 116

Norman Hopfer and Terri Hopfer, Appellants,

v.Neenah Foundry Company, Respondent.

No. ED 101754

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: September 22, 2015

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 22, 2015.

Application for Transfer Denied December 22, 2015

Kenneth K. Vuylsteke, Fox & Vuylsteke, 110 E. Lockwood, St. 150, Webster Groves, MO 63119, for appellant.

Bradley R. Hansmann, Patrick A. Bousquet, 800 Market St., Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for respondent.

KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge

Introduction

Appellants Norman and Terri Hopfer (collectively referred to as "Hopfer") appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying Hopfer's motion for new trial, following a jury verdict in favor of Respondent Neenah Foundry Company ("Neenah"). Norman Hopfer suffered injuries when he lost control of his pickup truck after driving over an open drainage inlet. At least one of the grates covering the inlet had become dislodged. Hopfer filed suit against Neenah, the grate manufacturer, under a strict products liability theory. Hopfer alleged that the drainage grates used to cover the inlet were defective. On appeal, Hopfer contends that (1) the trial court erred in allowing Neenah to present the affirmative defense of compliance with contract specifications to the jury in Jury Instruction No. 8, and (2) the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Neenah's failure to conduct Failure Mode and Effects Analysis ("FMEA") testing when designing the grate system.

Because the affirmative defense of compliance with contract specifications is available to defendants in strict products liability claims in Missouri, and because sufficient evidence was presented at trial from which a jury reasonably could find Neenah was entitled to this defense, the trial court did not err in submitting Jury Instruction No. 8 to the jury. Missouri jurisprudence embraces a clear demarcation between claims of negligence and strict product liability that differentiates the evidence required to prove such claims. Because the proposed FMEA evidence raised matters related to Neenah's conduct, a consideration not at issue under Hopfer's claim for damages under a theory of strict products liability, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the FMEA evidence at trial. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hopfer's motion for new trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural History

Norman Hopfer was severely injured following a June 2009 car accident. Hopfer lost control of his pickup truck after driving over an open drainage inlet on Hall Street in the City of St. Louis. At least one of the grates covering the inlet was dislodged at the time Hopfer drove over the inlet. In his lawsuit, Hopfer alleged that Neenah was liable for his injuries under a strict products liability theory. Specifically, Hopfer alleged that the grates over which he drove became dislodged due to defects in the design which provided only two open-slot bolts to secure the grates, Neenah, a manufacturer of cast-iron products, produces cast-iron drainage grates used to cover drainage inlets. Neenah's normal grates have four bolts fastening each grate to a frame. The grates in question on Hall Street were modified to use only two bolt holes. Neenah manufactured the grate used to cover the inlet on Hall Street involved in Hopfer's accident under a contract with the Missouri Department of Transportation ("MoDOT"), which installed the grates as part of its road improvement program.

I. Pretrial Motions

Hopfer sought to introduce evidence at trial that Neenah failed to conduct FMEA testing on the two-hole grates in question. The trial court granted a pretrial motion-in-limine filed by Neenah excluding any discussion of Neenah's conduct in designing the grate system, including FMEA testing. Hopfer made an offer of proof consisting of testimony from his designated expert witness, Dr. van Schoor, who described FMEA testing as an analytical process used by manufacturers to detect potential failures in a product. FMEA testing is utilized during the design process to identify and correct potential problems. The trial court ruled that Hopfer's proffered FMEA evidence was inadmissible because it was not relevant to the jury's inquiry as to whether the grates were defective, but instead related to Neenah's conduct in designing the grates, a consideration that is "wholly irrelevant to a strict product liability claim." The trial court was not persuaded by Hopfer's attempts to classify FMEA testing as an "analytical tool" or an "engineering practice." The trial court concluded that "no amount of semantic legerdemain can change the obvious fact that it amounts in substance to safety-related conduct relative to the design-manufacturing process."

Neenah filed a pretrial motion for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that it was not liable for Hopfer's injuries under a theory of strict liability due to the compliance with contract specifications affirmative defense. Neenah maintained that it made the grates at issue pursuant to specifications provided by MoDOT. The trial court denied Neenah's motion, concluding that summary judgment could not be granted based on the factual record then before it. In its order, the trial court concluded that there was "evidence of [Neenah's] expertise and participation in the design of the grates which would preclude the application of the compliance with contract specifications doctrine."

Hopfer also filed a pretrial motion for partial summary judgment seeking to strike Neenah's affirmative defenses, including the compliance with contract specifications defense. The trial court denied Hopfer's motion. In its order, the trial court clarified and contextualized the language used in the prior order denying Neenah's motion for summary judgment. The trial court explained that its previous order, as a ruling on a motion for summary judgment only, did not contain "Findings of Fact." The trial court clarified that the language in its previous order stating that certain evidence "would preclude" the application of the compliance with contract specifications defense indicated only that "there is a question of fact on the issue."¹

II. Evidence at Trial

At trial, Neenah offered evidence that the grates were not defective. Neenah also asserted the affirmative defense of compliance with contract specifications. Neenah presented evidence that it merely manufactured the grates in compliance with MoDOT's design specifications, and therefore could not be held liable under a cause of action asserting strict products liability. At trial, Neenah presented evidence that it had originally manufactured the grates in compliance with MoDOT's specifications from a 1999 retrofitting project in the St. Louis area ("the 1999 retrofitting project"). Neenah presented evidence that it had no input on the design of the grates. Neenah's evidence showed that it simply relied on the specifications requested and approved by MoDOT, and manufactured the grates in compliance with MoDOT's specifications. Neenah maintained that MoDOT specified the same grates which were manufactured for use in the 1999 retrofitting project were to be used in the 2005 Hall Street project.

At trial, the parties presented conflicting evidence regarding Neenah's reliance on MoDOT's specifications in manufacturing the grates and Neenah's participation in the design process. Hopfer conceded that the grates used in the Hall Street project were the same as those used in the 1999 retrofitting project, but argued that the plans for the Hall Street project did not specify the type of grates to be used. Hopfer additionally presented testimony that MoDOT relied on Neenah to design and manufacture the two-bolt grate, and relied on Neenah to gauge the safety of a two-bolt grate, which was a departure from the four-bolt grate manufactured by Neenah. Specifically, Hopfer presented testimony that MoDOT does not design roadway grates, as well as testimony that the eventual grate design was simply a modified Neenah grate design.

Conversely, Neenah elicited testimony that MoDOT hired Neenah and Engineering Design Source, Inc. ("EDSI") to assist in the planning and engineering for the 1999 retrofitting project. Stephen Akkala ("Akkala"), a Neenah employee and engineer, testified that MoDOT and EDSI asked Neenah to change its standard four-hole grate to a two-hole design. Akkala further testified that MoDOT was "controlling the show" with respect to the design of the grates, and that Neenah "supplied what they asked for." Akkala stated that MoDOT or EDSI told Neenah on two separate occasions to change the dimensions of the grate and the number of bolt holes.

The jury was also shown a video deposition of Randall Glaser ("Glaser"), the MoDOT project manager in charge of the design and approval of the 1999 retrofitting project. In his deposition, Glaser stated he was responsible for designing the grate system and he relied on Neenah only to cast a grate that would fit. Glaser stated that he signed off on the grates for use in the 1999 retrofitting project, and that he verbally approved drawings submitted by Neenah based on MoDOT's requested specifications for the grates. A representative from EDSI also approved the details and dimensions of the grates for the 1999 retrofitting project.

Neenah ultimately manufactured the grates in accordance with MoDOT's specifications calling for two bolt holes rather than four. Akkala testified that Neenah's only role in the process was to follow the instructions provided by the engineers to change the grates to contain two holes, Akkala stated that the grates Neenah supplied to MoDOT matched the MoDOT specifications. Glaser stated that after his final approval of the drawings, Neenah had no discretion to change the design of the grates. Glaser also testified that a MoDOT project engineer or...