Poage v. Crane Co.

• Citation: 523 S.W.3d 496
• Decision Date: 02 May 2017
• Docket Number: No. ED 103953,ED 103953
• Parties: Jeanette G. POAGE, Respondent, v. CRANE CO., Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

523 S.W.3d 496

Jeanette G. POAGE, Respondent,

v.CRANE CO., Appellant.

No. ED 103953

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: May 2, 2017

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 8, 2017

Application for Transfer Denied August 22, 2017

Robert T. Haar, Susan E. Bindler, Colleen O. Zern, for Defendant/Appellant.

Benjamin R. Schmickle, St. Louis, MO, Michael A. Gross, Joseph F. Yeckel, Clayton, MO, Robert W. Cowan, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff/Respondent.

OPINION

Colleen Dolan, Judge

Jeanette 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 appeals 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.¹

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 mesothelioma 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. , 844 S.W.2d 448, 455 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (explaining that a products liability claim can arise from (1) a design defect, (2) a manufacturing defect, and/or (3) a failure to warn of danger).

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 submissible case by failing to present sufficient evidence to support a verdict in her favor. On January 12, 2016, all of Crane's post-trial motions were overruled pursuant to Rule 78.06 and deemed "final" for purposes of appeal pursuant to Rule 81.05(a)(2)(A), because the trial court did not rule on them within 90 days.²

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 , 437 S.W.3d 762, 768 (Mo. banc 2014). When reviewing a circuit court's denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the reviewing court must decide whether the plaintiff made a submissible case by offering sufficient evidence to support every element required for liability. Id . In determining whether the plaintiff made a submissible case, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp ., 410 S.W.3d 623, 630 (Mo. banc 2013) (herein " Smith II ").³ We will only reverse the jury's decision if "there is a complete absence of probative fact to support the jury's conclusion." Id . (quoting Dhyne v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 188 S.W.3d 454, 457 (Mo. banc 2006) ). "A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a drastic action that can only be granted if reasonable persons cannot differ on the disposition of the case." Delacroix v. Doncasters, Inc ., 407 S.W.3d 13, 39 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).

b. Available Products Liability Claims in Missouri

Under Missouri products liability law, a plaintiff has three theories of recovery available to her: strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty. Welsh v. Bowling Elec. Mach., Inc. , 875 S.W.2d 569, 572 (Mo. App. S.D. 1994) ; Linegar v. Armour of America , 909 F.2d 1150, 1152 (8th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the jury found Crane liable to Mrs. Poage under theories of (1) strict liability and/or (2) negligence.

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. , 148 S.W.3d 28, 30 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004). To make a submissible case under a strict products liability theory in Missouri, the plaintiff must show:

(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. , 261 S.W.3d 493, 506 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007), opinion adopted and reinstated after retransfer (Oct. 6, 2008) overruled on other grounds by Badahman v. Catering St. Louis , 395 S.W.3d 29 (Mo. banc 2013) ; § 537.760; Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402(A). Accordingly, "[t]he strict liability theory is further divided into liability for [1] defective design of a product and [2] liability for failure to warn of an inherent danger in the product." Linegar , 909 F.2d at 1152.

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 , 261 S.W.3d at 506. Under both strict liability and negligence theories, the plaintiff is required to show a causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury. Id .

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. , 368 S.W.3d 340, 350–51 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). The plaintiff must prove (1) causation in fact (or "but for" cause) and (2) proximate causation. Strong , 261 S.W.3d at 506. Cause in fact is established if "the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant's conduct." Id . Whether the negligent conduct was the cause in fact is a question for the jury. Wagner , 368 S.W.3d at 351. Proximate cause, however, is a question of law, which we review de novo . Id . at 353.

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 Haynsworth ; (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 cause’ [a] plaintiff's injury" to establish cause in fact. Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp ., 863 S.W.2d 852, 863 (Mo. banc 1993).

Substantial Factor

To establish actual causation in Missouri, the...