## Facts

- A four-and-a-half-year-old child, Eric Magnuson, was struck in the head by a wheel and tire that came off a passing Dodge pickup truck.
- The wheel was jointly designed by Chrysler and Kelsey-Hayes and manufactured by Kelsey-Hayes Canada under Kelsey-Hayes’s quality-assurance standards.
- The child suffered catastrophic and permanent injuries, including coma, cortical blindness with lasting visual defects, hemiparesis, impaired growth and motor function, aphasia, balance and hearing problems, cognitive impairment, and behavioral difficulties; expert evidence indicated he was unlikely to be competitively employed.
- The child, through a next friend, sued Kelsey-Hayes Company, Kelsey-Hayes Canada, Ltd., and Chrysler on strict products-liability theories alleging a manufacturing defect.
- Evidence included expert testimony attributing the wheel failure to manufacturing problems (including improper cooling leading to dangerously thin steel) that adequate inspection would have detected.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s post-verdict voluntary dismissal of Chrysler mooted the trial court’s stated basis for granting a new trial (its perceived error in dismissing Chrysler before trial).
2. Whether the remaining defendants could obtain a new trial based on Chrysler’s dismissal despite not opposing dismissal, asserting cross-claims, or seeking to rejoin Chrysler.
3. Whether the plaintiff made a submissible strict-liability manufacturing-defect case sufficient to support the jury verdict.
4. If the verdict was reinstated, whether the case should be remanded only to consider remittitur.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order granting a new trial.
- The court held that the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of Chrysler after the verdict mooted the trial court’s rationale for a new trial based on Chrysler’s absence.
- The court rejected the remaining defendants’ attempt to rely on Chrysler’s dismissal to set aside the verdict where they had not shown legally cognizable prejudice and had not taken steps to protect any contribution/indemnity interests.
- The court held the evidence, including expert testimony on manufacturing defect and causation, was sufficient to submit the strict-liability claim to the jury and to sustain the verdict.
- The court reinstated the jury’s verdict and remanded for further proceedings limited to remittitur.

## Legal Principles

- A new-trial order cannot be sustained on a stated ground that becomes moot due to subsequent procedural events eliminating the controversy.
- A party seeking relief based on the dismissal or absence of a co-defendant must show prejudice and preserve a legally protectable interest; failure to oppose dismissal or assert cross-claims may forfeit reliance on the co-defendant’s absence as a basis for a new trial.
- In strict products liability for manufacturing defect, expert testimony linking a specific manufacturing process failure to a dangerous defect and to the product’s failure during reasonably anticipated use can make a submissible case for the jury.
- When a new trial is unwarranted but a damages challenge is preserved, remand may be limited to consideration of remittitur rather than retrial on liability.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the plaintiff’s jury verdict because the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of the previously dismissed co-defendant mooted the trial court’s reason for granting a new trial, the remaining defendants lacked a preserved and prejudicial basis to complain of the co-defendant’s absence, and the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of a manufacturing defect to support submission to the jury; the case was remanded only for consideration of remittitur.


Magnuson ex rel. Mabe v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 844 S.W.2d 448 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)