Ragland Mills v. General Motors

Robert E. Hogan, Judge This is a products liability action based on the malfunction of a 1982 Cadillac automobile. The recovery
sought by the plaintiff is limited to recovery for damage to the product itself and is sought on three alternative theories:
(1) negligence; (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and (3) strict liability in tort. The trial court directed
a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse and remand. Preliminarily, some elementary principles bear restatement. The first is that if the plaintiff made a submissible case under
any pleaded theory, this judgment must be reversed. Holmes v. McNeil, 356 Mo. 763, 767, 203 S.W.2d 665, 668 (1947); Hammon
v. Gentemann, 423 S.W.2d 5, 7 (Mo.App. 1967); Bowers v. Columbia Terminals Co., 213 S.W.2d 663, 667 (Mo.App. 1948). This is
true because the verdict was directed at the close of the plaintiff's case and before the plaintiff had elected and informed
the court of the theory upon which it wished to submit its case. Bean v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 233 S.W.2d 782, 785-86
(Mo.App. 1950). And, in determining whether the plaintiff made a submissible case, we are obliged to consider the evidence
and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, disregarding defendant's
evidence except insofar as it aids the plaintiff's case. Rustici v. Weidemeyer, 673 S.W.2d 762, 765[1] (Mo.banc 1984); Krug
v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 416 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Mo. 1967); Beshore v. Gretzinger, 641 S.W.2d 858, 862 (Mo.App. 1982). Another
principle to be borne in mind, generally stated, is that answers to interrogatories constitute admissions, although a party
is not conclusively bound by them. Smith v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 358 S.W.2d 91, 94-96[3][4,5] (Mo.App. 1962).