Allison v. Sverdrup & Parcel & Associates, Inc.
1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4455, 738 S.W.2d 440, 75 A.L.R. 4th 845 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a comparative fault jurisdiction, a person attempting to rescue another from imminent peril created by a defendant's negligence is not contributorily negligent unless the rescuer's actions are rash or reckless. If a rescuer's conduct is found to be rash or reckless, that fault is compared with the defendant's negligence to apportion damages, rather than serving as a complete bar to recovery.
Facts:
- The University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR) established a research project called 'GROW' to convert wood by-products into natural gas using a large, pressurized feed bin to hold sawdust.
- The project design allowed for toxic gases, including carbon monoxide, to potentially accumulate inside the feed bin.
- On October 1, 1980, student research assistant Kurt Holekamp entered the bin to clear sawdust that had built up on the interior walls.
- Shortly after entering, Holekamp was overcome by carbon monoxide in the bin and fell unconscious.
- Upon seeing Holekamp collapse, Donny Lee Allison, a UMR lab mechanic, instructed a coworker to call for an ambulance.
- Allison then put on a canister-type gas mask, which lacked an independent air supply, and climbed down into the bin to rescue Holekamp.
- While attempting to climb out of the bin, Allison was also overcome by the toxic gases, fell, and lost consciousness.
- Both Allison and Holekamp died from asphyxiation due to carbon monoxide poisoning.
Procedural Posture:
- The survivors of Donny Lee Allison filed a wrongful death action against Sverdrup Corporation, Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. (SPA), Sverdrup Technologies, Inc. (STI), and Dr. Virgil Flanigan in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, a state trial court.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, the trial court entered directed verdicts in favor of defendants Sverdrup, SPA, and Dr. Flanigan.
- The plaintiffs' negligence claim against the remaining defendant, STI, was submitted to the jury.
- The jury, using a comparative fault instruction, returned a verdict for STI, assessing 100% of the fault to the decedent, Donny Lee Allison.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed both the directed verdicts in favor of Sverdrup and SPA and the jury verdict in favor of STI (appellee) to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Missouri's comparative fault system, does a trial court commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on the rescue doctrine, which judges a rescuer's conduct by a 'rash or reckless' standard, and instead instructing only on a standard of ordinary negligence for the purpose of apportioning fault?
Opinions:
Majority - Simon, Judge.
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error when it fails to instruct a jury on the rescue doctrine in a comparative fault case, because the doctrine establishes that a rescuer's conduct is measured by a 'rash or reckless' standard, not one of ordinary negligence. The adoption of comparative fault modifies the rescue doctrine by requiring the jury to apportion fault if the rescuer's conduct is found to be rash or reckless, rather than completely barring recovery. The trial court’s instructions were erroneous because they applied an ordinary negligence standard to Allison's rescue attempt and failed to instruct the jury that the defendant's negligence in imperiling the victim (Holekamp) could be the proximate cause of the rescuer's (Allison's) death. This failure misled the jury and materially affected the outcome of the case, requiring reversal and a new trial against STI. The court separately affirmed the directed verdicts for Sverdrup and SPA, finding insufficient evidence of their involvement in the feed system's design.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the viability and application of the rescue doctrine following Missouri's adoption of a pure comparative fault system. It establishes that the doctrine's protective standard of care for rescuers—judging their conduct only by a 'rash or reckless' standard—survives and must be explained to the jury. The case integrates this traditional tort doctrine into the modern framework by holding that if a rescuer's conduct meets this high threshold for negligence, their fault is then compared and apportioned with the defendant's, rather than acting as an absolute bar to recovery as it would have under contributory negligence. This preserves the public policy of encouraging rescues while aligning it with the equitable principles of fault apportionment.
