Wilkinson v. Stanley Fastening Sys.

693 S.W.3d 166

Andrew WILKINSON, Respondent,

v.STANLEY FASTENING SYSTEMS, L.P., Appellant.

No. ED 111901

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: July 16, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Honorable Clinton R. Wright, Judge

For Appellant: David L. Coffman, Booker T. Shaw, Benjamin S. Harner, One U.S. Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

For Respondent: David Grebel, Mark R. Niemeyer, Michael S. Kruse, 211 N. Broadway, Ste. 2950, St. Louis, MO 63102.

KURT S. ODENWALD, Presiding Judge

Introduction

Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. ("Stanley") appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Andrew Wilkinson ("Wilkinson") on his products liability claim. Wilkinson was struck in the eye by a stapler fired from a pneumatic (compressed air-powered) stapler manufactured by Stanley. In one of several points on appeal, Stanley argues the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a mistrial after Wilkinson’s counsel repeatedly referred to. Stanley as a "billion-dollar company" in express violation of the trial court’s order in limine prohibiting any argument regarding Stanley’s financial status. Stanley maintains the prejudicial impact of the improper statements is shown by the jury’s verdict of $11 million, which Stanley argues was excessive since Wilkinson sought only noneconomic damages. This Court finds that the improper statements were irrelevant, inflammatory, repeatedly violated the order in limine, and were not cured by the trial court sustaining Stanley’s objections. Further, we reasonably may conclude from the size of the verdict that the trial court’s error in not granting the requested mistrial prejudiced the outcome of the trial. Therefore, we hold the trial court abused its discretion in denying Stanley’s motion for mistrial after the improper references to Stanley’s size and wealth as a "billion- dollar" company. Finding reversible error, we grant the point, which is dispositive of the appeal. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Factual and Procedural History

The following facts are limited to only those matters relevant to resolving the appeal.

On September 19, 2012, Wilkinson was working as a contractor installing a wood floor. Wilkinson was using a pneumatic stapler gun, model S32SX, manufactured by Stanley in 1994. While sizing and marking floorboards, Wilkinson "tossed" the stapler towards his tool box. The stapler fired a staple, striking Wilkinson in the eye. Wilkinson was not wearing eye protection. Wilkinson’s eye was punctured and had to be surgically removed.

On October 13, 2016, Wilkinson filed a first amended petition against Stanley for damages arising out of the incident. Wilkinson proceeded on two theories of negligence:¹ negligent design and negligent failure to warn. For negligent design, Wilkinson argued the stapler was defectively designed because it did not have available and feasible safety devices in the form of a contact trip or dual trigger that would have prevented unintentional firing of staples. For negligent failure to warn, Wilkinson argued the stapler lacked an adequate warning on the risk of harm posed by a stapler lacking safety devices, such as a contact trip or dual trigger, that would have prevented unintentional firing of staples.

The case proceeded to a two-day jury trial. Before trial, Stanley filed a motion in limine to prohibit Wilkinson from referring to or presenting evidence related to Stanley’s assets, revenues, income, or financial resources. The trial court granted the motion and entered an order in limine, to which the parties agreed on the record without objection.

Evidence was presented that the stapler was a trigger-fire device, which fires a staple when the user pulls the trigger. The stapler did not have a contact trip or dual trigger. A contact trip requires the nose of the tool to be placed on the work surface before the stapler can fire a staple. A dual trigger requires the user to press two parts of the stapler to trigger the firing of a staple. The subject stapler had a warning label stating, among other things, the following: "THIS TOOL DOES NOT CONTAIN A CONTACT TRIP AND IS INTENDED FOR USE ONLY WHERE A CONTACT TRIP TOOL CANNOT BE USED DUE TO APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS." The warning label was close to the trigger and worn away, impairing its legibility. The stapler was designed and intended exclusively for use in controlled, industrial production applications. Stanley did not sell or distribute the stapler to consumers in the general public. Stanley limited the distribution of the stapler to industrial users through a loan tool program, in which the users were required to wear personal protective equipment and received training on using the stapler. Wilkinson alleged Stanley knew the staplers could escape the controlled environment of the loan tool program and make their way into the public market, as in Wilkinson’s case. Wilkinson had purchased the stapler in 2008 or 2009 from his then-employer, a flooring distributor for whom Wilkinson repaired tools such as pneumatic staplers, who had purchased the stapler from an outside contractor.

During Wilkinson’s cross-examination of Stanley’s senior safety assurance manager ("Manager") about Stanley’s record retention procedures relating to the loan tool program, the following exchange occurred:

Q: How did Stanley keep track of their records? Did they not have like a server? Did they not keep things digitally?

A: Yeah, of course, we do.

Q: So these records related to this program—let me just ask you. These loan tool agreements when it was going on, did they keep those on a computer, digital, a server?

A: The loan tool agreements? I don’t know. I-

Q: Well, you said that the records went with this business. Did you ship the server with it? Did you say, forget it, we’re just getting rid of all this stuff, we’re not retaining anything?

A: I can’t answer it ‘cause I don’t know.

Q: I’m sorry, do you expect the jury to believe that the billion dollar-

STANLEY: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q: Do you expect me to believe-

STANLEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q: Stanley is a billion-dollar company-

STANLEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Stanley requested a sidebar outside the hearing of the jury. Stanley moved for a mistrial on the grounds that Wilkinson’s counsel knowingly asked three improper questions that violated the order in limine barring Wilkinson from referencing Stanley’s financial status. Stanley argued that the express violation could not be cured within the context of a personal injury case seeking millions of dollars in damages. The trial court admonished Wilkinson’s counsel to "[s]top doing that, please." Wilkinson’s counsel declined, and he posited that his questions were permissible because they related to Stanley’s ability to keep track of its records. The trial court then stated:

THE COURT: We’re going to finish it. We’re going to get off of this. I’m overruling your objection and denying your mistrial. Finish the cross-examination. After the sidebar concluded, Wilkinson’s counsel continued cross-examining Manager.

Wilkinson sought only noneconomic damages for pain and suffering, offering testimony from his treating physician, his wife, and himself. Wilkinson testified about the immediate pain he suffered when the 3/8-inch staple shot into his eye, how he had to wait for several hours before a surgeon could remove the staple, and how his eye had to be removed due to the risk of infection. Wilkinson’s wife recalled he was screaming in pain at the hospital and making the worst sounds she ever heard a man make. Wilkinson testified about pain he experienced during recovery, including intense vertigo and needing additional surgery to remediate gauze that had grown into his eye. Wilkinson stated that his vision was permanently affected and that he has constant headaches and tunnel vision that at times make him unable to do anything but curl up in his truck and wait for the symptoms to abate. Wilkinson testified he suffers vision-related accidents such as stepping onto uncovered vents, falling, and having difficulty parking cars. Wilkinson described having persistent social and emotional issues, such as how his young children were afraid of him for months. Wilkinson testified that he became socially isolated and stopped playing recreational sports due to fears of suffering further injury. Wilkinson described feeling depressed and disfigured, recalling that he had been voted "prettiest eyes" in high school and that his "better than 20/20" vision had been a point of pride.

At the close of trial, Wilkinson submitted a verdict director for negligent design and failure to warn derived from the Missouri Approved Instructions-Civil ("MAI") 25.09 (8th ed.), which asked the jury to find the following: (1) Stanley manufactured or designed the stapler; (2) the sta- pler lacked safety devices or mechanisms to prevent the unintentional or unexpected firing of staples; (3) Stanley failed to use ordinary care to either manufacture or design the stapler to be reasonably safe or adequately warn of the risk of harm from the stapler lacking safety devices or mechanisms to prevent the unintentional or unexpected firing of staples; and (4) Wilkinson was thereby damaged. The jury was also given a comparative fault instruction.

The jury returned a verdict for Wilkinson. The jury awarded Wilkinson $11,000,000 in noneconomic damages for pain and suffering. The jury found Wilkinson thirty percent at fault, reducing his net recovery to $7,700,000. Stanley now appeals.

Points on Appeal

Stanley raises fourteen points on appeal. In Point Ten, Stanley contends the trial court erred in denying Stanley’s request for a mistrial following comments by Wilkinson’s counsel in the presence of the jury that Stanley was a "billion-dollar company" because such statements were highly prejudicial and inflammatory, and...