Court Opinion

ID: 9777154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:00:42.147159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:49.536750
License: Public Domain

WELLIVER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
While I am inclined to believe that the court of appeals appropriately dealt with this case on the issue of design defect, and concur in the separate dissenting opinion of Donnelly, J., I am compelled to address what I believe are three other glaring deficiencies in the principal opinion — its failure to adopt a test for “unreasonably dangerous,” its misapplication of the law on “failure to warn” cases, and its erroneous treatment of the issue of damages.
I
I agree that the consumer expectation test, first developed in the area of contract law under an implied warranty theory, has come under increasing scrutiny and criticism by courts and commentators. Although not yet introduced into our law, it may well be that the prudent-manufacturer test or the risk-utility test (or the risk-utility test combined with a factor analysis) is the better reasoned approach. I cannot, however, agree with the principal opinion’s limiting of its discussion to “edificatory” ends. The approach this Court sanctions, whether in the case sub judice or in future cases, will govern how cases shall be argued to the jury and then, if appropriate, briefed on appeal. This is a threshold matter inherent in every strict liability case and by not approving one of the tests, the principal opinion, if effect, leaves all future triers of strict product liability cases at their peril as to choosing a theory of proof at trial.
II
The principal opinion further errs in its resolution of what is necessary to establish liability under a “failure to warn” theory. The principal opinion correctly notes that leading commentators and courts agree that to establish liability under a “failure to warn” theory the defendant must either know or should have known of the dangerous propensities of the product. It then, unwisely I believe, rejects this view because it is said to conflict with the “very raison d’etre of strict tort liability law.” The principal opinion relies upon Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. 673 S.W.2d 434 (Mo. banc 1984). There, however, a majority of this Court treated the case as a design defect case and not as a failure to warn case. Cf. Comment, When the Best Defense is no Defense: The Future of State-Of-The-Art Evidence in Product Liability Actions in Missouri-Elmore v. Owens-Illinois, 50 Mo.L.Rev. 438 (1985). And, in Grady v. American Optical Corp., 702 S.W.2d 911 (Mo.App.1985), the court in a strict liability failure to warn case noted the difference between negligence and strict liability and proceeded to hold the defendant liable because the defendant knew of the potential harm and failed to include adequate warnings with its product. It is such mixing of theories with little or no analysis that has, no doubt, led some commentators to suggest that courts refrain from creating a strict liability tort for failure to warn without further inquiry into both policy and theory. See generally Epstein, Commentary, 58 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 930, 935 (1983); Wade, On the Effect in Product Liability of Knowledge Unavailable Prior to Marketing, 58 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 734 (1983).
It is sometimes said that inadequate or no warnings at all constitute — and are *394merely one form of — a design “defect;” and, that because knowledge of the dangerous character of a product is imputed in a strict liability design defect case it should also be imputed when the plaintiff alleges that the product is defective unless there is an accompanying warning of its dangerous character. Unfortunately, such an analysis is both overly simplistic and not warranted as a matter of policy. The initial purpose for allowing recovery under a failure to warn theory was that certain products are inherently dangerous for their intended or foreseeable uses, but these products should not be considered unreasonably dangerous as designed because they are beneficial to society and designed as flawlessly and economically feasible as possible. The theory arose in vaccine and drug cases, and because any other approach would create “absolute” liability, many courts and the Restatement require that the manufacturer either know or should have known of the dangerous quality of the product before imposing liability for lack of an adequate warning. Comment j to section 402A of the Restatement, therefore, provides in part that the seller give a warning “if he has knowledge, or by the application of reasonable, developed human skill and foresight should have knowledge, of ... the danger.” See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388. The New Jersey Supreme Court, for example, has held:
When the strict liability defect consists of an improper design or warning, reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct is a factor in determining liability. * * * Generally, the state of the art in design defect cases and available knowledge in defect warning situations are relevant factors in measuring reasonableness of conduct. * * *
Similarly, as to warnings, generally conduct should be measured by knowledge at the time the manufacturer distributed the product. Did the defendant know, or should he have known of the danger, given the scientific, technological, and other information available when the product was distributed; or, in other words, did he have actual or constructive knowledge of the danger? * * * Constructive knowledge embraces knowledge that should have been based on information that was reasonably available or obtainable and should have alerted a reasonably prudent person to act. Put another way, would a person of reasonable intelligence or of the superior expertise of the defendant charged with such knowledge conclude that defendant should have alerted the consuming public?
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories, 97 N.J. 429, 479 A.2d 374, 385-86 (1984) (citations omitted). See generally W. Kimble & R. Lesher, Products Liability § 193 (1979); Keeton, The Meaning of Defect in Products Liability Law — A Review of Basic Principles, 45 Mo.L.Rev. 579, 586-87 (1980); Robb, A Practical Approach to Use of State of the Art Evidence in Strict Products Liability Cases, 77 Nw.U.L.Rev. 1, 12 (1982); Schwartz, The Post-Sale Duty to Warn: Two Unfortunate Forks in the Road to a Reasonable Doctrine, 58 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 892, 893-84 (1983); Twerski et al, The Use and Abuse of Warnings in Products Liability— Design Defect Litigation Comes of Age, 61 Cornell L.Rev. 495 (1976); Comment, Requiring Omniscience: The Duty to Warn of Scientifically Undiscoverable Product Defects, 71 Geo. L.J. 1635 (1983). Similarly, a California Court noted that
in all warning cases — even if the plaintiff or the court claims to analyze failure to warn or inadequacy of warning in the context of a strict products liability claim — the tests actually applied condition imposition of liability on the defendant is having actually or constructively known of the risk that triggers the warnings.
Kearl v. Lederle Laboratories, 172 Cal.App.3d 812, 218 Cal.Rptr. 453, 465 (1985). See also Hayes v. Kay Chemical Co., 135 Ill.App.3d 932, 90 Ill.Dec. 632, 482 N.E.2d 611 (Ill.App.1985). And, in Arizona, the following instruction has been approved:
A party who manufactures or sells a product which he has reason to foresee may cause injury from a particular use, *395is required to give an adequate warning of the danger. If he fails to do so, he is liable for any injury resulting from the failure to warn.
Schneider v. Cessna Aircraft, CCH Products Liability No. 28,916 (Ariz.App.1985). See also Dart v. Wieve Manufacturing Inc., 147 Ariz. 242, 709 P.2d 876, 884 (1985); Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co., CCH Products Liability No. 29,267 (Ariz.App.1985); Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 136 Ariz. 556, 667 P.2d 750 (Ariz.App.1983).
It may well be that the confusion surrounding this area of the law lies not in the Restatement test itself; rather, it might be argued that a failure to warn theory may not be either necessary under or consistent with § 402A. It is not enough merely to assert that a product may be “defective” absent a warning and not “defective” with a warning. That would mean that the concept of “defective” — or, unreasonably dangerous — rests upon a time continuum whose parimeters remain undefined. See generally Wade, On The Effect in Product Liability of Knowledge Unavailable Prior to Marketing, 58 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 734 (1983). And, it also overlooks that if the product is “defective” without the warning strict liability should be imposed not because there was no warning but because the product has been found to be unreasonably dangerous for its anticipated uses. Injecting the issue of warning in this context only confuses the issue by telling the jury that an arguably unreasonably dangerous product could have been made safer by a simple warning; this may be relevant under a risk-utility analysis for a design defect case but it has no place as a separate action under § 402A. The case at bar illustrates this point. The principal opinion holds that the trim tab actuators were unreasonably dangerous and, therefore, actionable under § 402A. That appellant Beech might have excaped liability had adequate warnings, or instructions, accompanied the parts is but one of the reasons why the parts might be unreasonably dangerous. Conversely, had the parts not been unreasonably dangerous then § 402A would not apply. Because the jury was not properly instructed that there must be either actual or constructive knowledge under a failure to warn theory, the cause requires reversal and remand.
Ill
On the question of damages, the principal opinion errs in holding that the real issue is not the propriety of the trial court’s ruling on the scope of respondent’s closing argument. That issue is before this Court.
Victims of a nonintentional tort are entitled to a monetary award equal to the damage they have suffered due to the tor-tious conduct. C. McCormick, Handbook on the Law of Damages § 137 (1935). Compensatory damages provide relief to the injured party, deter unreasonable and inefficient behavior, create an incentive for wrongfully injured persons to bring suit, and serve as a mechanism for avoiding the uneconomic precautions potential tort victims would undertake if injuries were not compensated. R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law § 6.12 (1977). An ordinary tort victim is not entitled to more than he or she has lost, and giving him or her more violates the common law of Missouri and would foster improper incentives.
One of the elements of damage in this case is the loss of future earnings. To avoid overcompensation, the lump-sum damage award for loss of future earnings is not equal to the arithmetical sum of the future annual earnings lost. C. McCormick, Handbook on the Law of Damages § 87 (1935); R. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law § 6.13 (1977).
The measure of a lump-sum award for future pecuniary losses arising from a tort is the present worth of the full amount of the loss of what would have been received at the later time.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 913A (1977). Accord, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Dickerson, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1347, 1349, 84 L.Ed.2d 303 (1985); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523, 103 S.Ct. 2541, 76 L.Ed.2d 768 (1983). The law of Missouri is in accord *396with these authorities and a plaintiff is not entitled to more than the present value of lost future earnings. Mattan v. Hoover, 350 Mo. 506, 166 S.W.2d 557 (1942); Mickel v. Thompson, 348 Mo. 991, 156 S.W.2d 721 (1941).
During opening argument, respondents’ argued:
Now, the verdict — the monetary verdict — the damage verdict — is composed of two parts: the loss of income, and the loss of love and companionship and consortium; the loss of services, care, society, guidance.
The loss of income is really not that difficult to compute. You can compute it with some mathematical function. The evidence, ..., is that Mr. Nesselrode could have worked ... until he was 75. Had he worked until he was 75, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 63 would indicate that he would have earned $980,194.00.
The evidence is also clear that he performed services around the house_ Jane Nesselrode testified was about twelve hundred dollars a year. And again, with some mathematical computations — you know that he had a life expectancy of 15 years: you multiple those two numbers and come up with an amount; and I think that’s $19,200.00.
Plaintiffs are also entitled to recover for the funeral expenses, which was $1,000. And I would submit to you, those losses total $1,000,394.00.
During the trial, respondents introduced Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 63, a chart depicting the deceased’s alleged future wage history but the chart did not reduce the figures to present value.1
During closing argument, respondents argued:
[H]ad he lived, he would have worked until he was 75. And the loss of ages [wages] and fringe benefits, which came in without objection on the part of anybody in this courtroom — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 63 — was $980,190.00.
[[Image here]]
That did not include the funeral expenses of a thousand dollars, and the money that Jane Nesselrode must expend over a period of George’s lifetime since he is not there for maintenance or for the services that he performed for her— It amounted to ... approximately $1,200.00 a year. But over George's life span, if you multiply it by his life expectancy, it would have come to $19,200.00.
[[Image here]]
I submit to you, she’s entitled to receive the loss of income and fringe benefits that Mr. Nesselrode would have received over the period of his lifetime.
[[Image here]]
[T]he best formula that we could come up with, which we thought was fair and reasonable to submit to you, was that if the loss of wages and fringe benefits for his lifetime was $980,194.00, certainly the nonpecuniary loss that Jane and the daughters sustained was worth an equal amount.
While deliberating, the jury requested Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 63, received it, and returned a verdict for $1,500,000.00.
Respondents’ argument to the jury misstated the law and was clearly prejudicial.2 Carefully avoiding any mention of “present value,” respondents’ attorney equated the damages which should be awarded to the net non-present value amounts on Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 63.
The principal opinion contends “that the issue of present value is a factual matter appropriate for argument.” I disagree. The issue of present value is a legal matter, and a plaintiff is simply not entitled to more than the present value of the lost future earnings. See, e.g., Bean v. Norfolk and W. Ry. Co., 84 Ill.App.3d 395, 39 *397Ill.Dec. 665, 405 N.E.2d 418 (1980); Paducah Area Public Library v. Terry, 655 S.W.2d 19 (Ky.App.1983); Currie v. Fiting, 375 Mich. 440, 134 N.W.2d 611 (1965); Harper v. National Shoes, Inc., 98 Mich.App. 353, 296 N.W.2d 1 (1979); Oberhelman v. Blount, 196 Neb. 42, 241 N.W.2d 355 (1976); King v. Britt, 267 N.C. 594, 148 S.E.2d 594 (1966); Plourd v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co., 266 Or. 666, 513 P.2d 1140 (1973); Osborne v. Bessonette, 265 Ore. 224, 508 P.2d 185 (1973); Johnson v. Pearson Agri-Systems, Inc., 119 Wis.2d 766, 350 N.W.2d 127 (1984); DeChico v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 758 F.2d 856 (2nd Cir.1985); Westbrook v. General Tire and Rubber Co., 754 F.2d 1233 (5th Cir.1985); Metz v. United Technologies Corp. 754 F.2d 63 (2nd Cir.1985); Culver v. Slater Boat Co., 722 F.2d 114 (5th Cir.1983); Abernathy v. Superior Hardwoods, Inc., 704 F.2d 963 (7th Cir.1983); Hoskie v. United States, 666 F.2d 1353 (10th Cir.1981); Chiarello v. Domenico Bus Service, Inc., 542 F.2d 883 (2nd Cir.1976).
The principal opinion also asserts that appellants have not preserved this issue on appeal. Appellants, however, objected to respondents’ valuation argument at the close of the evidence immediately before respondents’ closing argument, and their objection was in compliance with the Committee’s Comment to MAI 5.01:
During the instruction conference the parties and the Court should discuss (off the record) just what damages are supported by the evidence and properly can be argued to the jury. In this way, the jury arguments can proceed without undue interruptions.
Appellants’ objection was overruled. Because respondents’ closing argument on damages was improper and prejudicial, the cause should be reversed and remanded.

. Since the plaintiff has the burden of proving damages with specificity, Sampson v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 560 S.W.2d 573 (Mo. banc 1978), there must be situations where the plaintiff must introduce evidence of present value.

. The lack of a present value instruction allows the jury to be more easily misled.