§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

1,678 chars

The partner verdict director for Fluor differed slightly in the third and fourth paragraphs, in that it ascribed
liability to Fluor based on Fluor’s knowledge and negligence, rather than the partnership’s knowledge and
negligence. The instruction, with the challenged phrase in italics, read:
                     On the claim of plaintiff (--) for compensatory damages for personal injury
           against defendant Fluor Corporation, your verdict must be for plaintiff (---) if you
           believe:
                     First, defendant Fluor Corporation was a partner of the Doe Run Company
           Partnership, and
                     Second, while defendant Fluor Corporation 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, defendant Fluor Corporation 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, defendant Fluor Corporation allowed plaintiff (---), a resident of
           Herculaneum, to be exposed to unsafe levels of lead which originated from the smelter
           operations before May 26, 1990, and
                     Fifth, defendant Fluor Corporation was thereby negligent, and
                     Sixth, such negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to
           plaintiff (---).

Other Sections in This Document (3438)

Full Text