Negligence : Comparative Fault – Independent Contractor – Remedial Measures

Listen to this article

(1)Where a plaintiff injured when he was crushed between two trucks as he delivered commercial trucks to a dealership sued the dealership claiming that it did not provide the proper equipment for the unloading process, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial because the court correctly rejected the defendant’s comparative fault instruction because it used an improper definition of negligence, and since the plaintiff did not submit his case to the jury on the theory of premises liability, the “independent contractor exception” raised on appeal by the defendant was not applicable.

(2)Where a trial court excluded in a negligence action defendant’s evidence of the subsequent remedial measures taken by the plaintiff’s employer, the offer of proof was not specific and definite, so the offer of proof was deficient and was not preserved for appeal.

Judgment is affirmed.

Key v. Diamond International Trucks (MLW No. 67378/Case No. WD77323 – 15 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Welsh, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Buchanan County, Judah, J. (Corey Kraushaar and Christopher Seibold, St. Louis, and Daniel Young, Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant) (John Turner, Christopher Sweeny, Kevin Meyers and Marty Seaton, Kansas City, Missouri, for respondents).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)