## Facts

- A nonprofit entity organized a multi-day public fair in downtown St. Louis and contracted with an independent contractor to operate a bungee-jumping attraction.
- On July 5, 1993, Loren Martin Hatch attended the fair, bought a ticket for the bungee jump, and signed the operator’s written release/waiver.
- The bungee setup used a crane and bungee cord; during Hatch’s jump, an operator failed to attach the bungee cord to the crane.
- Hatch fell about 70 feet and suffered catastrophic injuries, including severe spinal trauma.
- Hatch sued the fair organizer and the contractor, asserting (among other theories) premises liability against the organizer and negligence/recklessness against the contractor.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the organizer on joint-venture and a separate gross-negligence/inspection count, and granted summary judgment to the contractor on ordinary negligence; the case proceeded to trial on premises liability (organizer) and recklessness (contractor).
- A jury returned a $5,000,000 verdict for Hatch, finding the organizer liable on premises liability and the contractor liable for recklessness.
- Post-trial, the trial court entered JNOV for the organizer on premises liability and denied remittitur.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s premises-liability verdict against the fair organizer, making JNOV improper.
2. Whether the recklessness claim against the contractor was properly submitted and properly defined in the jury instructions.
3. Whether summary judgment for the contractor on ordinary negligence was proper.
4. Whether summary judgment for the organizer on joint-venture and a separate gross-negligence/inspection theory was proper.
5. Whether the $5,000,000 verdict required remittitur as excessive.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the JNOV for the organizer and remanded with directions to enter judgment against it consistent with the jury’s premises-liability verdict.
- The court affirmed all other rulings, including:
  - submission of the contractor’s recklessness claim and the instruction defining recklessness,
  - summary judgment for the contractor on ordinary negligence,
  - summary judgment for the organizer on joint-venture and the separate gross-negligence/inspection count,
  - denial of remittitur of the $5,000,000 award.

## Legal Principles

- A possessor or controller of premises open to public invitees owes a duty of reasonable care to protect invitees from unreasonable risks arising from conditions and activities on the premises.
- A land possessor may face liability for harms caused by an independent contractor’s work when the possessor’s duty to invitees is treated as nondelegable or when the activity presents a foreseeable, serious risk if reasonable precautions are not taken.
- Recklessness requires more than inadvertence; it involves conscious disregard or indifference to a known, high degree of risk of death or serious physical harm.
- Remittitur is warranted only when an award is so excessive that it shocks the conscience or indicates bias, passion, or prejudice; appellate review gives substantial deference to the trial court’s refusal to reduce a verdict.
- Joint-venture liability requires proof of elements such as shared control and shared profits/losses; absent those elements, a contractor relationship does not create joint-venture responsibility.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the jury’s premises-liability verdict against the fair organizer, holding that sufficient evidence supported liability despite the contractor relationship, and otherwise affirmed the verdict, the recklessness submission and instruction, the dismissal of alternative theories, and the $5,000,000 damages award.


Hatch v. V.P. Fair Found., Inc., 990 S.W.2d 126 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1999)