Stanley v. Cottrell Inc., No. 14-1635 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseFrom 1978 to 2008 Stanley worked as a hauler for Allied and was responsible for loading and unloading cars from his trailer. In 2008, Stanley attempted to unload a car from the upper deck of a 55 foot, eight car trailer manufactured by Cottrell. He lifted himself onto the upper deck railing of the trailer, moved sideways across the railing, and placed his right hand on the trunk of the car. As he reached for the car door with his left hand, he lost his hold and fell, landing on his back and leg. His back was not seriously injured, but his leg has been operated on seven times, resulting in $642,797.38 in medical costs. Stanley sued, alleging negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and outrage, claiming that his trailer was defective under Missouri law because it was not equipped with additional fall protections such as ladders, handholds, and extended catwalks. After contrasting expert testimony, a jury found for Cottrell. Stanley moved for a new trial, arguing that the court erred by refusing to allow the testimony of rebuttal witnesses and by its jury instructions on his negligence and strict liability claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of his motions and award of $11,171.92 in costs to Cottrell.
Court Description: Civil case - Torts. Plaintiff's proffered rebuttal testimony was cumulative and the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit it; plaintiff did not preserve his challenge to defendant's verdict director as he did not make a specific objection when the court read the instruction at the instruction conference and did not object when the instruction was read to the jury; since his claim of error was forfeited, plaintiff must show an obvious error in the instruction and he has failed to do so; based on the language in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1920(2) a party may recover costs of both printed and electronically recorded transcripts of the same deposition as long as each transcript is necessary for use in the case; award of various costs affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.