Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Egelhoff v. Holt

875 S.W.2d 543 (1994)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...

Egelhoff v. Holt

Missouri Supreme Court

875 S.W.2d 543 (1994)

Facts

Linda Holt (defendant) had an aboveground swimming pool manufactured by Kero Metal Products (Kero) (defendant). The pool had several insertable plastic caps designed to cover the top of the pool-deck-railing support posts. The plastic caps would often fall on the ground. One day Holt picked up the caps but did not put them back on the posts, and after cleaning the pool, she invited Anita Egelhoff (plaintiff) to swim. Egelhoff cut her thumb on a support post and fell into the pool, injuring her back. Egelhoff sued Holt for negligence and Kero for strict liability of a defective product under Missouri Approved Instruction (MAI) 25.04 and for strict liability of a failure to warn under MAI 25.05. Egelhoff testified that she did not look where she put her hand and that if she had looked, she would have never put her hand on top of the post because it was very sharp. Egelhoff also testified she frequently swam in Holt's pool. The jury found Egelhoff 80 percent at fault, Kero 15 percent at fault, and Holt five percent at fault. Egelhoff appealed the trial court’s denial of her motion for a new trial. Kero moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing that there was no defect when the pool left its possession, and that the pool was modified because the caps on the support posts were cut. The trial court denied Kero’s motion for JNOV. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Egelhoff’s motion for a new trial and reversed the trial court's denial of Kero’s motion for JNOV. The jury instruction given at Kero’s request included negligent assumption of the risk and contributory negligence. Egelhoff argued that it was improper to submit a comparative-fault instruction in strict products-liability cases, and that the comparative-fault instruction did not follow MAI 32.28. Egelhoff and Kero both appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 541,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 26,900 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership