Eastern District Missouri Court of Appeals Overturns $7.7 Million Verdict

In Wilkinson v. Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P., the Eastern District of Missouri Court of Appeals addressed an appeal by Defendant Stanley Fastening Systems, L.P. (“Stanley”) following a jury verdict Plaintiff Andrew Wilkinson’s (“Wilkinson”) favor on his products liability claim. Wilkinson was injured when a pneumatic stapler manufactured by Stanley fired a staple and struck him in the eye, requiring his eye to be surgically removed. Wilkinson brought suit against Stanley alleging claims for negligent design and negligent failure to warn.

Before trial, the trial court granted Stanley’s motion in limine to prohibit evidence relating to Stanley’s assets, revenues, income, or financial resources. During the two-day jury trial, Stanley objected to questions related to Stanley’s financial status, relying on the court’s in limine order and moved for a mistrial. The court overruled Stanley’s objection and denied the motion for mistrial. At the close of trial, the jury awarded Wilkinson $11,000,000 in noneconomic damages for pain and suffering, but found Wilkinson thirty percent at fault, reducing his net recovery to $7,700,000.

On appeal, Stanley argued that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a mistrial after Wilkinson’s counsel repeatedly referred to Stanley as a “billion-dollar company” in the presence of the jury. Stanley contended that these statements were impermissible, inflammatory and highly prejudicial, as evidenced by the jury’s excessive verdict. Stanley contended that once those statements were made in front of the jury, the prejudicial effect could not be cured, thereby requiring a mistrial. Wilkinson argued that the “billion-dollar” comments were relevant to its negligence claims because it addressed the issue of Stanley’s retention of records relating to the loan tool program.

The appellate court disagreed, reiterating that statements referencing Stanley’s financial status were prohibited by both Missouri law and by the trial court’s orders. In finding for Stanley, the appellant pointed to well established Missouri law that referencing the size, wealth, and corporate status of a party during trial is improper when intended to arouse prejudice and not within the scope of legitimate argument. Because the court found that Stanley’s financial status was referenced in statements by counsel rather than as questions it held the references were irrelevant and prejudicial.

The appellate court further noted that the large damage award supported a finding of prejudicial error, as “[i]nflammatory references to the large size and wealth of a defendant are likely to provoke a jury to apply the ‘deep pocket’ theory of liability and to enhance the size of the verdict relative to the defendant’s perceived ability to pay.” The appellate court ultimately held that the repeated, inflammatory statements about Stanley in the presence of the jury were of such an incurable nature that the trial court’s limited action in sustaining Stanley’s objections was insufficient to curb the bias and prejudice that resulted from those statements. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.