ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict in favor of Modine Manufacturing Company and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation in a wrongful death lawsuit alleging toxic chemical exposure led to the death of a Camdenton man, rejecting multiple claims of trial error raised by the plaintiffs.
In a decision filed April 2, the court upheld the judgment of the Circuit Court of Camden County, concluding that the plaintiffs, collectively referred to as the Grays, failed to demonstrate that alleged evidentiary and procedural errors during trial were either improper or prejudicial.
The case stemmed from claims that William Gray was exposed to water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE), an industrial solvent, and that the exposure caused him to develop a fatal kidney disease.
The Grays brought negligence claims against the two companies, asserting that Sundstrand improperly handled and disposed of TCE during its operation of a manufacturing plant in Camdenton from 1972 to 1990.
The Grays claim Modine failed to adequately investigate or remediate contamination after purchasing the plant in 1990.
They alleged that this conduct led to contamination of both private wells and the public water supply, ultimately causing William Gray’s illness and death.
Following a multi-week trial in August 2023, a jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of both companies.
The trial court entered judgment accordingly, and the Grays appealed, raising five points of alleged error related primarily to evidentiary rulings and trial conduct.
On appeal, the court emphasized that trial courts are granted broad discretion in managing evidence and courtroom proceedings, and that such decisions are presumed correct unless clearly unreasonable and outcome-determinative.
The appellate court found that none of the alleged errors met that threshold.
One of the central issues on appeal involved testimony from a defense expert who opined that TCE-contaminated water could not have reached a private well used by the Gray family.
The plaintiffs argued that this opinion had not been disclosed before trial and constituted an unfair surprise.
However, the court found that the plaintiffs had not specifically questioned the expert about that well during his deposition, and therefore could not claim surprise when he addressed it at trial.
The court noted that general questioning during discovery is insufficient to preserve such objections.
The appellate court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court improperly excluded a document related to prior settlement discussions between the defendants.
The court found that the document had minimal probative value and posed a significant risk of prejudice and confusion, particularly because it contained statements made for settlement purposes rather than facts.
Missouri law generally disfavors the admission of settlement communications for these reasons.
The underlying case detailed decades of industrial activity and environmental investigation in the Camdenton area.
Evidence presented at trial showed that TCE had been used as a degreasing solvent at the plant and discharged into a nearby lagoon, which contributed to contamination concerns.
Monitoring wells and testing over the years revealed TCE levels exceeding federal safety standards in certain locations, including a public water source known as the Mulberry Well, which supplied a significant portion of the city’s water until it was shut down in 1999.
William Gray, born in 1983, was alleged to have been exposed to contaminated water both prenatally and during childhood through a private well near the plant and later through the municipal water supply.
He was diagnosed with IgA nephropathy in 1999 and died in 2020 from complications related to the disease.
Despite these facts, the jury ultimately found in favor of the defendants, and the appellate court concluded that the trial had been conducted within the bounds of judicial discretion.
The court stated that even if some rulings had been questionable, the plaintiffs failed to show that any alleged error materially affected the outcome of the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District case number: SD38369
