Hill v. Sparks
1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2347, 546 S.W.2d 473 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person with superior knowledge of a dynamic danger arising from the operation of machinery has a duty to warn others who do not share that specific knowledge; the 'open and obvious' doctrine for static conditions does not negate this duty when the specific danger is created by the machine's operation under particular circumstances.
Facts:
- Liberty Equipment Company hosted a field demonstration of heavy construction machinery on a rough, uneven tract of land.
- Wayne Sparks, an experienced operator, was instructing his sister, Patricia Hill, on how to operate an E-200 Pay Scraper, a machine known to be extremely bouncy.
- Hill, who was familiar with other types of earth-moving equipment but not this specific machine, drove it briefly before becoming frightened by its handling and stopping.
- Sparks took over as the operator and instructed Hill to stand on the exterior side ladder of the machine while he drove.
- As Sparks drove the machine down a hill, it gathered speed and began to bounce severely on the rough terrain.
- The machine's front wheel struck a mound of dirt, causing a large bounce that threw Hill from the ladder and into the machine's path.
- The machine then ran over Hill, causing fatal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Hill's survivors filed a wrongful death action against Wayne Sparks and Liberty Equipment Company in a state trial court.
- The plaintiffs settled their claim with co-defendant Liberty Equipment Company prior to trial.
- A jury trial on the claim against defendant Sparks resulted in a verdict in favor of Sparks.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court granted on the grounds that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- Defendant Sparks, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order granting a new trial to the reviewing appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an operator of heavy machinery with superior knowledge of its specific operating dangers have a duty to warn a passenger about risks that arise not from a static condition but from the machine's movement and the terrain, even if some general danger of riding on the machine's exterior might be apparent?
Opinions:
Majority - Welborn, Special Judge.
Yes. An operator with superior knowledge of a machine's dynamic operating characteristics has a duty to warn a passenger about the specific risks involved. The court distinguished this case from landowner liability cases involving static dangers, noting that the risk here was dynamic—created by the machine's speed, its specific propensity to bounce, and the rough terrain. Sparks possessed superior knowledge of these specific risks, as he was an experienced operator who knew it was 'the roughest machine there is,' while Hill lacked experience with this particular machine. Therefore, the 'open and obvious' danger rule does not apply, and whether Sparks breached his duty of care was a question for the jury to decide, not a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and limits the application of the 'open and obvious' danger doctrine, distinguishing between static conditions and dynamic, activity-based risks. It establishes that a defendant's superior knowledge of a specific danger creates a heightened duty to warn that cannot be excused simply because a situation appears generally hazardous to a layperson. The ruling reinforces the principle that questions of comparative knowledge and contributory negligence in complex, dynamic situations are fact-intensive issues properly resolved by a jury rather than by a judge as a matter of law.
