§1

Citation: §1
Parent Document: Patrick Blanks v. Fluor Corporation (2014)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2014-06-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2678642/patrick-blanks-v-fluor-corporation/ ↗
Full Text

3,542 chars
59
   However, we note that the instruction does not attribute the actions of an agent to the principal, nor
follow the Bacon elements. Rather, the instruction simply ascribes blame to Fluor, the purported principal.
Thus, the instruction does not properly submit an agency theory. The instruction read:
         On the claim of plaintiff (insert child’s name) for compensatory damages for personal
         injury against defendant Fluor Corporation, your verdict must be for plaintiff (---) if you
         believe:
         First, defendant DRIH and Leadco Investments, Inc. were partners of the Doe Run
         Company Partnership, and
         Second, before March 26, 1994, the adjacent community of Herculaneum was
         contaminated with unsafe levels of lead which originated from the smelter operations,
         and
         Third, before March 26, 1994, the Doe Run Company Partnership knew or had
         information from which it, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known that the
         adjacent Herculaneum community was contaminated with unsafe levels of lead which
         originated from the smelter operations, and
         Fourth, with respect to the Doe Run Company partnership, defendant Fluor Corporation
         had actual, participatory, and total dominion and control of partners DRIH and Leadco
         Investments, Inc. and exercised such dominion and control so DRIH and Leadco
         Investments, Inc. had no separate mind, will, or existence of their own but were mere
         conduits for defendant Fluor Corporation, and
         Fifth, defendant Fluor Corporation, in the exercise of that dominion and control, allowed
         plaintiff (--), a resident of Herculaneum, to be exposed to unsafe levels of lead which
         originated from the smelter operations before March 26, 1994, and
         Sixth, defendant Fluor Corporation was thereby negligent, and
         Seventh, such negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to
         plaintiff (--).
60
   The partner verdict directors for Massey and DRIH were identical in all respects except for the particular
defendant’s name and the ending date of the particular defendant’s involvement in the partnership. The
verdict directors, with the challenged phrase in italics, read:
                    On the claim of plaintiff (--) for compensatory damages for personal injury
         against defendant A.T. Massey Coal Company [DRIH], your verdict must be for plaintiff
         (---) if you believe:
                    First, defendant A.T. Massey Coal Company [DRIH] was a partner of the Doe
         Run Company Partnership, and
                    Second, while defendant A.T. Massey Coal Company [DRIH] was a partner of
         the Doe Run Company Partnership, the adjacent community of Herculaneum was
         contaminated with unsafe levels of lead which originated from the smelter operations,
         and
                    Third, at that time, the Doe Run Company Partnership had information from
         which it, in the exercise of ordinary care, knew or should have known that the adjacent
         community of Herculaneum was contaminated with unsafe levels of lead which
         originated from the smelter operations, and
                    Fourth, the Doe Run Company Partnership allowed plaintiff (---), a resident of
         Herculaneum, to be exposed to unsafe levels of lead which originated from the smelter
         operations before April 5, 1989 [March 26, 1994], and
Other Sections in This Document (3438)

Full Text
