Love v. Osage Marine Serv., Inc.

690 S.W.3d 505

Candace LOVE, as personal representative of the Estate of Casey Redmond, Plaintiff/Respondent,

v.OSAGE MARINE SERVICES, INC., Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 111905

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: April 16, 2024

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 20, 2024

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 9, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Cause No. 2122-CC08981, Honorable Madeline O. Connolly, Judge

FOR APPELLANT: Douglas E. Gossow, Neal W. Settergren, Giles B. Howard, 701 Market Street, Suite 1500, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Patrick K. Bader, Jacob C. Murov, 230 S. Bemiston Suite 1401, Clayton, MO 63105.

Cristian M. Stevens, J.

Introduction

Osage Marine Services, Inc. ("Appellant") appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of Candace Love ("Love" or "Plaintiff’) for the death of her son, Casey Redmond ("Redmond"). In its first two points on appeal, Appellant argues the trial court improperly submitted claims for damages for pain and suffering and loss of support to the jury. Third, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying remittitur because the jury verdict was excessive. Fourth, Appellant argues the trial court erred in admitting evidence of liability and certain damages following Appellant’s admission of liability. Fifth, Appellant argues the trial court erred in submitting a jury instruction that contained an incorrect statement of law. Finally, Appellant argues the trial court’s entry of judgment violated an injunction issued by a federal district court in a companion federal case. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural Background

Factual History

On December 14, 2019, Casey Redmond and D.M., his supervisor, were working as deck crew members on a tugboat, the M/V Rain Man.¹ Redmond, who was 22 years old, appeared to be feeling well and was not having any health or medical problems.

Around 1:30 a.m. on the morning of December 15, Redmond and D.M. got an assignment to help put a barge into a fleet. As the Rain Man pulled up to the barge, D.M. and Redmond both had their life vests on and buckled. When he stepped onto the barge, D.M. noticed cornmeal on the barge deck. According to D.M., the cornmeal was a slipping hazard and a workplace safety hazard and should have been removed as soon as possible. D.M. avoided the cornmeal and boarded the barge.

After D.M. stepped onto the deck, he heard the tools that Redmond was carrying bounce and hit the deck. Then D.M. heard the water splash as Redmond fell into the river. D.M. and a deckhand from another boat saw Redmond floating in the river towards the Rain Man. D.M. ran down the barge deck to keep a visual on Redmond. Redmond continued towards the front of the Rain Man and went underwater. He was never seen again. Numerous vessels spent hours searching for Redmond hoping to find him alive.

After unsuccessfully searching for Redmond’s body, recovery crews found Redmond’s life jacket. The back plate of the life jacket was cut in half. The boat or its propeller likely cut the life jacket in half, and there was nothing else identified in the river that could have caused the cut. Appellant’s vice president of operations conceded Redmond likely hit the propeller while wearing his life vest, which likely killed or maimed him. He also expressed, based on his experience, that Redmond could have survived for two and a half to three hours after falling into the river without injury. Redmond’s body was never found.

At the time of his death, Redmond lived with his mother, Plaintiff Candace Love, in her home. When Redmond was not working, he used most of his free time to keep the house clean, cut the grass, shovel snow, and fix things that stopped working. He generally helped Love with anything she needed done around the house. Occasionally, Redmond would contribute $100 or so to help Love with bills.

In addition, Redmond provided crucial medical care for his mother, who has had Type I diabetes since she was a child. As Love has aged, the diabetes has taken a toll on her body, causing neuropathy and erratic blood sugar levels. When her blood levels get low, she gets shaky and confused and cannot take care of herself. Redmond would check Love’s blood sugar levels and make her something to eat or drink to increase her blood sugar levels. This was important because if she did not get her blood sugar levels up she would go into a coma and possibly die. Love’s diabetes also has caused a stomach condition called gastroparesis, making her prone to bouts of nausea and vomiting. Redmond took care of her while she was vomiting and cleaned up after her.

Love testified to these contributions by Redmond. Redmond’s grandfather and coworkers also attested to the pecuniary contributions he made to his mother. Love expected these contributions to continue in the future. She now lives alone in the same home in which she lived with Redmond.

Procedural History

Love filed a two-count petition alleging Appellant’s negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, and unseaworthiness of the Rain Man, resulting in Redmond’s death. On each count, Love requested damages in excess of $51 million for Redmond’s conscious pain and suffering prior to his death and Love’s loss of Redmond’s economic support and pecuniary services, among other damages.

Appellant initially denied any negligence and all liability. Approximately one week before trial, Appellant moved to file an amended answer no longer contesting liability for Redmond’s death. The trial court granted Appellant’s motion, and Appellant filed an amended answer admitting that Appellant failed to provide Redmond with a safe workplace, admitting liability for Redmond’s death, and reserving the right to contest only damages at trial. As to each count, Appellant admitted "plaintiff has adduced evidence sufficient to support a finding of liability" and stated its intention to "not contest Plaintiffs right to an award for those elements of damages that are available and proven under the applicable law." The case proceeded to trial.

Motions for Directed Verdict and Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

At the close of Plaintiffs case-in-chief, Appellant moved for a directed verdict on Plaintiffs claim for loss of financial support, arguing Plaintiff failed to demonstrate she was financially dependent on Redmond. Additionally, Appellant moved for a directed verdict on Plaintiffs claim for conscious pain and suffering, arguing Plaintiff presented insufficient evidence that Redmond was conscious immediately prior to his death. The trial court denied both motions.

Following the jury’s verdict on damages, Appellant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Appellant renewed his previous arguments regarding damages for loss of financial support and conscious pain and suffering. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Jury Instruction 6

Prior to closing arguments, the trial court held a jury instruction conference. Appellant submitted Instruction 6, stating, among other things, the only issue for the jury to decide was damages since Appellant admitted liability and that the jury must not consider damages for Plaintiff’s grief or bereavement from Redmond’s death. Appellant patterned this instruction on MAI 31.07(A), as modified by MAI 24.06. Plaintiff did not object to Instruction 6, and the instruction was submitted to the jury.

Appellant also proposed a second instruction modeled on a jury instruction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Federal Employer’s Liability Act ("FELA") cases involving death. Appellant stated it submitted this instruction because it believed the MAI instruction did not properly instruct the jury on the law, but did not object to Instruction 6, which it already had submitted. Plaintiff objected to the Seventh Circuit instruction. The trial court sustained the objection and did not give the proposed instruction.

Appellant proposed a third instruction, which tracked the modern federal jury instruction. Again, Plaintiff objected, and the trial court rejected the instruction.

Finally, Appellant proposed a fourth instruction, a non-MAI instruction which would provide the jury with guidance on what damages were available. Plaintiff objected. The trial court sustained the objection and did not give the fourth proposed instruction.

After closing arguments and deliberations, the jury returned a verdict assessing $15 million in total damages against Appellant. Appellant now appeals.

Discussion

Appellant raises six points on appeal. In its first point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict on Plaintiff’s claim for conscious pain and suffering because Plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to submit those damages to the jury. In its second point, Appellant similarly argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict on Plaintiffs claim for loss of financial support because Plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to submit those damages to the jury. In its third point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for remittitur because the jury’s award exceeded the damages demonstrated by the evidence. In its fourth point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in allowing Plaintiff to adduce evidence of liability and certain damages. In its fifth point, Appellant argues t tie trial court erred in submitting Instruction 6 to the jury because the instruction contained an incorrect statement of law. In its sixth and final point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in entering judgment because a federal district court issued an injunction prohibiting the entry of judgment.

Point I

In its first point, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict on Plaintiff’s claim for conscious pain and...