Court Opinion

ID: 9684503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:59:14.790342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:56.474279
License: Public Domain

GEORGE W. DRAPER III,
Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I would vote to reverse the judgment of the trial court for the following reasons.
Great care should be exercised in utilizing summary judgment because it denies the party against whom it is entered a day in court. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 377 (Mo. banc 1993){quo*646ting Cooper v. Finke, 376 S.W.2d 225, 229 (Mo.1964)); Hart v. Kupper Parker Communications, Inc., 114 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Accordingly, we review the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was entered. ITT, 854 S.W.2d at 376. We accord the party against whom summary judgment was entered the benefit of every doubt. Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 105 S.W.3d 543, 545 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). “Summary judgment exists not to execute the merely weak, but rather to euthanize the terminally hi.” Zumwalt v. Koreckij, 24 S.W.3d 166, 168 (Mo.App. E.D.2000).
Following my review of the record in the light most favorable to Weber, I would conclude the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for McBride and Son Contracting Co., Inc. and Laramie Drywall Co., Inc. (hereinafter and collectively, “Defendant”). The trial court thereby prevented Weber from submitting his personal injury claim to the jury under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence, allowing “a jury to infer from circumstantial evidence that the plaintiffs injury resulted from some neghgent act of the defendant, without requiring the plaintiff to allege and prove specific negligence.” Hale ex rel. Hale v. City of Jefferson, 6 S.W.3d 187, 196 (Mo.App. W.D.1999). In order to invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, Weber must estabhsh: “(1) the incident resulting in injury is of the kind which ordinarily does • not occur without someone’s negligence; (2) the incident is caused by an instrumentality under the control of the defendant; and (3) the defendant has superior knowledge about the cause of the incident.”. Logan v. Phillips, 896 S.W.2d 38, 41 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). “A party seeking to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur need not submit facts surrounding the occurrence that exclude all reasonable hypotheses except defendant’s negligence.” Eversole v. Woods Acquisition, Inc., 135 S.W.3d 425, 428 (Mo.App. W.D.2004).
Weber’s injuries are those which ordinarily would not occur absent negligence by Defendant’s failure to secure the protective barrier over the hole. There was undisputed evidence that it was not the responsibility of the painters to create or secure a protective barrier on a construction site. Weber submitted enough facts to conclude, more often than not, an accident such as this resulted from a failure to exercise reasonable care on the part of the person in charge of securing the protective barrier.
There were genuine issues demonstrating that both subcontractors were responsible for securing a protective barrier over the hole in the floor.1 “If the instrumentality causing the harm is under the control of the defendant contractor and the plaintiff is injured while in a work area common to employees, the defendant owes a duty of care to avoid causing such injury.” Mino v. Porter Roofing Co., Inc., 785 S.W.2d 558, 561 (Mo.App. W.D.1990). There was disputed evidence regarding whether the general contractor accepted either subcontractors’ work. The instru-mentalities were under control of Defendant’s management.
Further, Defendant possesses a superior knowledge regarding the cause of the injury. “Superior knowledge can be inferred when a defendant exercises exclusive control over the instrumentality at issue.” *647Eversole, 135 S.W.3d at 429. “The requirement that the instrumentality be under the management and control of the defendant does not mean, nor is not limited to, actual physical control, but refers rather to the right of control at the time the negligence was committed.” Weaks v. Rupp, 966 S.W.2d 387, 394-95 (Mo.App. W.D.1998)(emphasis added).2 “However, when the evidence of control is attenuated by time or circumstance, there must be additional evidence to show the defendant has superior information, experience, or opportunity to know about the cause of the alleged occurrence.” Eversole, 135 S.W.3d at 429. In this case both subcontractors had the duty to construct and/or replace a protective barrier over the hole in the floor prior to finishing their work. Accordingly, both subcontractors have superior experience and opportunity to know that without a protective barrier on a construction site, someone could fall through a hole in the floor. Thus, Weber made a submissible res ipsa loquitur case.
When a plaintiff establishes the elements of res ipsa loquitur, an inference of negligence by the defendant is created. Zumwalt, 24 S.W.3d at 168. “Once the inference of negligence created by res ipsa loquitur is established, it ‘will defeat a motion for summary judgment even though the defendant presents evidence tending to establish absence of negligence.”’ Id. at 169 (quoting Graham v. Thompson, 854 S.W.2d 797, 801 (Mo.App. W.D.1993)).
Thus, I believe, Weber should be granted his day in court. I would vote to reverse the judgment of the trial court.

. There can be no valid objection to the application of res ipsa loquitur based solely upon the existence of two defendants] The jury could reasonably find that either or both of the defendants were in control of the area which should have been secured, so as to make the application of res ipsa loquitur proper. Bass v. Nooney Co., 646 S.W.2d 765, 768 (Mo. banc 1983).

. Further, it is unclear as to whether either subcontractors’ work was accepted formally by the general contractor; thus, each potentially could have had the right of control at the time of the accident.