Kingman, et al. v. Dillards, Inc., No. 10-2636 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff brought a diversity action against Dillard's, Inc. seeking damages for the injuries she sustained to her right shoulder when a high-hanging rack of apparel fell on her at a Dillard's store. Plaintiff's husband, a 300-pound quadriplegic, also brought a claim for loss of consortium where plaintiff was his primary caregiver. Dillard's appealed the amount of the damages award because plaintiff's right shoulder was already damaged from prior accidents and also appealed the district court's judgment in favor of the husband on his loss of consortium claim. The court affirmed the district court's award of damages to plaintiff and held that it was reasonably foreseeable that some injury, even if not a serious shoulder injury, might result from a high-hanging clothing rack falling from the wall onto a customer. The court held, however, that it was unlikely that, absent legislative action, the Supreme Court of Missouri would expand the concept of consortium to include a claim for lifetime professional nursing services that vastly exceeded the underlying award of the injured spouse. Consequently, the court reversed the consortium award as contrary to Missouri law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - torts. Damage award for injuries suffered in store accident affirmed as the district court did not err as a matter of law in concluding that even if plaintiff was predisposed for injury to her shoulder, defendant was still required under Missouri law to compensate her for the injuries she suffered when a store fixture struck her; plaintiff's husband's loss of consortium award for life-long nursing care is reversed as Missouri law does not contemplate an unlimited consortium claim of the sort awarded; as a result, the $1 million loss-of-consortium award is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further consideration.
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.