35.10 [1998 Revision] Illustrations(Product Liability(Defective Ladder

Instruction No 1 35.10 [1998 Revision] IllustrationsCProduct LiabilityCDefective Ladder Felix Fixit, an unmarried handyman, bought a wooden six-foot stepladder from Ladder Products Company which manufactured ladders and also maintained a retail outlet. Two weeks later, Felix was standing on the stepladder painting a ceiling in his family room when one of the brace legs at the rear of the ladder broke causing Felix to fall, head-first, into a stone fireplace and sustain injuries. He has sued Ladder Products under a theory of strict liability for product defect. Defendant Ladder Company relies upon contributory fault as an affirmative defense, since the date of injury was prior to the effective date of ' 537.760, et seq., R.S.Mo. The defect in the wooden leg at the place of the break was shown to have been a loose knot in the lumber from which the leg was fashioned. Both the original receipt introduced by Fixit and the defendant's file copy show that the purchase price was thirty dollars and that Fixit had been given a six dollar, 20% discount. Ladder Company's evidence indicated that Felix had selected the ladder from a number of ladders on display, had pointed out the knot to the salesman and requested and received a markdown in price because of the defect, stating that the knot would cause the leg to fail but that he would put a splice over the knot to strengthen the weak leg. Felix denied any such occurrence and said he received the 20% discount because he qualified as a commercial contractor and had received a contractor's discount from Ladder Products. Although Ladder Products admitted it did give contractors a discount of 20%, it denied that Fixit was a commercial contractor or had received a contractor's discount. Instruction No. 1 Instruction No. 2 (Same as MAI 2.01) (See MAI 2.03 (1980 New)) As you remember, the court gave you a general instruction before the presentation of any evidence in this case. The court will not repeat that instruction at this time. However, that instruction and the additional instructions, to be given to you now, constitute the law of this case and each such instruction is equally binding upon you. You should consider each instruction in light of and in harmony with the other instructions, and you should apply the instructions as a whole to the evidence. The order in which the instructions are given is no indication of their relative importance. All of the instructions are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. Instruction No. 3 (See MAI 2.02 (1980 Revision)) In returning your verdict you will form beliefs as to the facts. The court does not mean to assume as true any fact referred to in these instructions but leaves it to you to determine what the facts are. Instruction No. 4 (See MAI 3.01 (1998 Revision)) In these instructions, you are told that your verdict depends on whether or not you believe certain propositions of fact submitted to you. The burden is upon the party who relies upon any such proposition to cause you to believe that such proposition is more likely to be true than not true. In determining whether or not you believe any proposition, you must consider only the evidence and the reasonable inferences derived from the evidence. If the evidence in the case does not cause you to believe a particular proposition submitted, then you cannot return a verdict requiring belief of that proposition. Instruction No. 5 (See MAI 2.04 (1981 Revision)) The verdict form included in these instructions contains directions for completion and will allow you to return the permissible verdict in this case. Nine or more of you must agree in order to return any verdict. A verdict must be signed by each juror who agrees to it. Instruction No. 6 (See MAI 25.04 (1978 Revision)) Your verdict must be for plaintiff Felix Fixit if you believe: First, defendant sold the ladder in the course of defendant's business, and Second, the ladder was then in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use, and Third, the ladder was used in a manner reasonably anticipated, and Fourth, plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of such defective condition as existed when the ladder was sold, Instruction No. 7 (See MAI 32.23 (1978 Revision)) Your verdict must be for defendant Ladder Products if you believe: First, when the ladder was used, plaintiff knew of the danger as submitted in Instruction Number 6 and appreciated the danger of its use, and Second, plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably exposed himself to such danger, and Third, such conduct directly caused or directly contributed to cause any damage plaintiff may have sustained. Instruction No. 8 (See MAI 4.01 (1980 Revision)) If you find in favor of plaintiff Felix Fixit, then you must award plaintiff such sum as you believe will fairly and justly compensate plaintiff for any damages you believe he sustained and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future as a direct result of the occurrence mentioned in evidence. VERDICT A (See MAI 36.01 (1980 Revision)) Note: Complete this form by writing in the name required by your verdict. On the claim of plaintiff Felix Fixit for personal injuries, we, the undersigned jurors, find in favor of: (Plaintiff Fixit) or (Defendant Ladder Products Company) Note: Complete the following paragraph only if the above finding is in favor of plaintiff Felix Fixit. We, the undersigned jurors, assess the damages of plaintiff Felix Fixit at $ (stating the amount ). Note: All jurors who agree to the above findings must sign below.