## Facts

- Linda Jo Holt owned an above-ground swimming pool manufactured by Kero Metal Products, Inc., with removable plastic caps intended to cover sharp metal support-post edges.
- The caps frequently fell off; on the day of the incident Holt found several caps on the ground and set them aside without replacing them.
- Holt invited her tenant, Anita L. Egelhoff, to swim and asked her to help set up a volleyball net.
- Egelhoff climbed onto a narrow deck, tied the net to a support post, then reached back and grabbed the post while lowering herself.
- Egelhoff cut her thumb on an exposed metal post lacking its protective cap, twisted from pain, and fell into the pool.
- Egelhoff alleged the fall caused serious back injuries requiring therapy and multiple surgeries.
- Egelhoff sued Holt for negligence and sued Kero in strict liability for defective product and failure to warn.

## Issues

1. Whether the court could submit a single comparative fault instruction allocating fault among a negligence defendant and a strict products liability defendant.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to submit Egelhoff’s comparative fault to the jury.
3. Whether admission of an edited videotape depicting Egelhoff’s activities (playing pool and dancing) was an abuse of discretion due to unfair prejudice.
4. Whether Egelhoff made a submissible strict products liability case against Kero such that denial of Kero’s JNOV motion was proper.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court’s judgment and reversed the court of appeals to the extent it granted JNOV relief to Kero.
- The court held it was not error to use one comparative fault instruction to allocate fault among Egelhoff, Holt (negligence), and Kero (strict liability), consistent with Missouri’s products-liability comparative fault statute.
- The court held the record supported submitting Egelhoff’s comparative fault to the jury, including evidence of her awareness of the pool’s condition and her conduct in grasping the exposed post.
- The court held the edited videotape was relevant to damages and impeachment and was not so prejudicial as to require exclusion; admission was within the trial court’s discretion.
- The court held Egelhoff presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find a product defect existed when the pool left Kero’s control and that the defect was a direct cause of her injuries; denial of JNOV was proper.
- The jury’s verdict of $250,000 and allocation of fault (80% Egelhoff, 15% Kero, 5% Holt) remained intact.

## Legal Principles

- In Missouri, comparative fault may be applied in strict products liability and may be submitted in a unified instruction allocating fault among the plaintiff and multiple defendants even when liability theories differ (negligence and strict liability).
- In products cases, a plaintiff’s knowledge of an open and obvious defect may be considered in apportioning comparative fault under the governing statute.
- Demonstrative or impeachment evidence bearing on claimed injury severity (including surveillance-type video) is admissible when relevant to damages and not unfairly prejudicial; appellate review focuses on abuse of discretion.
- A strict products liability claim is submissible when evidence permits reasonable inferences that the product was in a defective condition when it left the manufacturer’s control and that the defect was a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; JNOV is improper if a reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld a verdict allocating comparative fault among a plaintiff and defendants sued under negligence and strict products liability, approved admission of an edited video relevant to injury claims, and ruled the evidence supported submitting strict liability to the jury, making JNOV for the manufacturer unwarranted.


Egelhoff v. Holt, 875 S.W.2d 543 (Mo. 1994)