Rogers v. Toro Mfg. Co.

Decision Date11 March 1975
Docket NumberNos. 35125,35126,s. 35125
Citation522 S.W.2d 632
PartiesJohn ROGERS, a minor, by and through his next friend James K. Rogers, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants, v. TORO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and Madeleine J. Neiswander, Executrix of the Estate of Dale E. Neiswander, Deceased, Defendant-Respondent. . Louis District, Division Two
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

E. Lemoine Skinner, III, Hullverson, Hullverson & Frank, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.

John J. Cole and Richard B. Scherrer, Armstrong, Teasdale, Kramer & Vaughan, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

James J. Virtel, Heneghan, Roberts & Godfrey, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.


We consider consolidated appeals arising out of a single trial. John Rogers, a minor, was injured when he was struck by a power lawn mower manufactured by defendant-appellant Toro Manufacturing Company, hereaftr called Toro. The mower was owned by John's grandfather, Dale E. Neiswander, now deceased. Actions were brought on behalf of John, for his injuries, by his father, James Rogers, Sr., as next friend, and by James Rogers, Sr. and his wife, Judith, as parents of John, to recover medical expenses and loss of services against Toro and against the Estate of Dale Neiswander, hereafter called Neiswander.

Toro appeals from an order of the trial court granting all plaintiffs a new trial after jury verdicts and judgments in favor of Toro and against plaintiffs. Toro contends that the trial court erred in granting plaintiffs a new trial on the ground that the court had erred in permitting Toro to introduce into evidence the 'Owner's Operating and Instruction Manual'. The Court also ruled that it had erred in giving erroneous converse instructions.

Plaintiffs appeal from the verdicts and judgments in favor of defendant Neiswander and against plaintiffs. They contend that the introduction of the Owner's Operating and Instruction Manual injected the issue of contributory negligence into the case and because the verdict was the result of prejudice because Toro was permitted to argue negligence on the part of James Rogers, Sr. Neiswander counters with the claim that plaintiffs did not make a submissible case against Neiswander.

The amended petition upon which the case was tried is in four counts. The first three counts are on behalf of plaintiff, John Rogers. Count I is based on the theory of strict liability in tort and directed against Toro. Count II, also directed against Toro, alleges breach of implied warranty. The essential contention of these counts is that the traction control lever on the mower was likely to and did move from the 'disengage' or neutral position, to the 'engage' or in gear position on its own, causing the mower to be propelled into plaintiff, John Rogers.

Count III pleads common law negligence against Toro on the theory that it negligently designed, manufactured, tested and inspected the mower, and against Neiswander on the theory that Dale Neiswander knew or should have known that the traction control lever was likely to move from 'disengage' to 'engage' on its own and failed to warn plaintiffs, John and James Rogers, Sr. The answers of Toro to the first three counts of the petition were essentially general denials.

In Count IV James and Judith Rogers, as the parents of John, incorporate the theories of Counts I, II and III as their action to recovery for medical expenses and loss of services against defendants. For answer to Count IV both defendants alleged the contributory negligence of both plaintiffs.

The cause was submitted by John and by his parents on the theory of strict liability as to Toro and on the theory of negligence for failure to warn as to Neiswander.

Dale Neiswander had purchased a Toro self-propelled power lawn mower from the local distributor. He received an instruction booklet which he read only to the extent necessary to complete assembly of the mower; to properly drain and refill it with oil and to operate the engage and disengage lever. He gave the booklet to Al Andrews, his yardman, who read it. The mower was used 2 or 3 times by Mr. Andrews before the incident giving rise to this litigation. Mr. Neiswander never used the mower.

Mr. Neiswander asked James Rogers, Sr., his son-in-law, to cut the grass on May 3, 1967, because Al Andrews was not available. James Rogers, Sr. went to Mr. Neiswander's home on that day accompanied by his three sons, Jim, 18, Jerry, 14, and John. James Rogers, Sr. had a power mower but had never operated a self-propelled power mower. Mr. Neiswander showed him how to start the mower; how the grass catcher was put on and removed; how to operate the traction control lever to engage and disengage the clutch mechanism. Mr. Neiswander did not give James Rogers the instruction booklet that came with the mower.

There is a small panel just below the handhold which contains the traction control lever and the throttle control lever. The traction control is on the left side of the panel, the throttle control is on the right side. The clutch is engaged by pushing the traction control lever forward; it is disengaged by pulling it back. When disengaged the motor continues to run and the blade continues to rotate but the drive wheels do not propel the mower.

James Rogers, Sr. had cut the grass in the front yard. He was using the grass catcher. After cutting the front yard he commenced mowing the rear yard. During the process he stopped mowing on about ten occasions prior to the accident to remove and empty the grass bag. On each occasion he put the traction control lever on disengage and left the motor running. It did not move on these occasions.

Just before the accident which is the subject of this case, John was kneeling near a bush toward the rear of the backyard looking at a rabbit hole. James Rogers, Sr. stopped the mower about 15 feet from where the boy was kneeling. He testified that he put the traction control lever in neutral, removed the grass bag and carried it to the entrance of the garage, which is attached to the rear of the house. While James Rogers, Sr. was emptying the bag the mower moved forward striking John in the right foot causing the injuries.

There was evidence on the part of plaintiffs that would warrant a jury in finding that vibrations would cause the traction control lever to move from the disengage position to the engage position. Toro's expert witnesses testified to the contrary.


One of the principal points of contention in the trial was the question of the location of the mower when James Rogers, Sr. left it to empty the grass bag. There was evidence to the effect that the ground between John and the mower was fairly level. There was also evidence that the mower was left upon an incline. The real issue, however, was whether the traction control lever was defective in design in that it moved from 'disengage' to 'engage' on its own causing the mower to be propelled forward striking John, irrespective of where it was positioned, or whether it moved down an incline propelled by the force of gravity alone without the clutch being engaged.

One of the ground upon which the trial court granted a new trial was that it erred in admitting Toro's Exhibit K into evidence. Exhibit K was a sixteen page booklet put out by Toro. The cover page reading:


Rotary Mower

19 and 21





The first page lists 20 'Operating and Safety Instructions'. After the exhibit was admitted into evidence operating instructions 4 and 5 were read into evidence by Toro's witness, Hasenbank. They read:



One of Toro's witnesses also read a sentence from page 9 of the booklet under the heading 'Bagging Tips':


Preliminary to a discussion of the admissibility of Exhibit K we consider Toro's contentions that plaintiffs injected the instruction manual into the case and failed to make timely objection to its admission.

The principle Toro seeks to invoke is that of curative admissibility formerly referred to as 'invited error'. It comes about when a party introduces inadmissible evidence without objection which is prejudicial to another party. The other party may then rebut that evidence with like evidence in order to remove any unfair prejudice. Ferguson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 442 S.W.2d 549 (Mo.App.1969).

There was evidence on the part of plaintiffs that there was an instruction booklet which James Rogers, Sr. had not seen or been aware of at the time he operated the mower. They did not seek to introduce the booklet nor any of its contents. The introduction of the contents of the booklet by Toro did not tend to rebut the evidence introduced by plaintiffs. Toro does not show us how it was prejudiced by plaintiffs' evidence. That evidence was not directed toward Toro. There was no prejudice to neutralize. The doctrine is not applicable here.

As to the contention that the matter is not preserved Mr. Bilhorn, on behalf of Toro, did testify that operating manuals usually advise that mowers should never be left unattended. However, when the exhibit was introduced plaintiffs objected to the introduction of the exhibit unless it was limited in its application to defendant Neiswander. A colloquy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, Inc.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1984
    ...v. Magic Chef, Inc., 288 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Iowa 1980); Early-Gray, Inc. v. Walters, 294 So.2d 181, 186 (Miss.1974); Rogers v. Toro Mfg. Co., 522 S.W.2d 632, 637 (Mo.App.1975); Olson v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 256 N.W.2d 530, 535 (N.D.1977). Commentators have agreed. See L. Frumer & M. Friedman,......
  • Nesselrode v. Executive Beechcraft, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1986
    ...660 S.W.2d 21, 23 (Mo.App.1983) (noting manufacturer does not have a duty to design accident proof product); Rogers v. Toro Manufacturing Company, 522 S.W.2d 632, 637 (Mo.App.1975) (noting strict tort liability does not mean absolute The core concern in strict tort liability law is safety. ......
  • Lewis v. Bucyrus-Erie, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1981
    ...load, and whether he was using the crane in a manner reasonably anticipated, an element of plaintiffs' case. Rogers v. Toro Manufacturing Co., 522 S.W.2d 632, 637 (Mo.App.1975); MAI 25.04. The fact that an argument may touch upon two issues, one legitimately in the case and the other not, d......
  • Tennis v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 24, 1981
    ...successfully complain that the trial court erred in refusing to admit the exhibits against General Motors. Rogers v. Toro Manufacturing Company, 522 S.W.2d 632, 639(14) (Mo.App.1975); Haire v. Stagner, 356 S.W.2d 305, 308(3) (Mo.App.1962); 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 546, at p. 31. Mor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Section 15.17 Failure to Warn as a Defect
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Tort Law Deskbook Chapter 15 Products Liability
    • Invalid date
    ...of the defect in the product and the dangers that can be expected from the failure to follow the instructions? Rogers v. Toro Mfg. Co., 522 S.W.2d 632, 638 (Mo. App. E.D. 1975). The placement of the warning, its language, and how it may or may not impress an average user of the product are ......
  • Section 15.38 Adequate Warnings and Instructions
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Tort Law Deskbook Chapter 15 Products Liability
    • Invalid date
    ...defect in the product and the dangers that can be expected from the failure to follow the instructions. Rogers v. Toro Mfg. Co., 522 S.W.2d 632, 638 (Mo. App. E.D. 1975); see also: · Nesselrode v. Exec. Beechcraft, Inc., 707 S.W.2d 371, 384 (Mo. banc 1986) (one of the pivotal concerns in a ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT