Construction Accident Complaint - Missouri

CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT PETITION

Table of Contents

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence
6. Count II — Premises Liability
7. Worksite Safety Allegations Supporting Count I
8. Count IV — Product Liability
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. State-Specific Notes

Caption

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF [________________________________] COUNTY, MISSOURI

DIVISION [____]
CASE NO. [____]

PETITION

Parties

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] resides at [ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Missouri [ZIP CODE].

2. Defendant [GENERAL CONTRACTOR NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

3. Defendant [SUBCONTRACTOR NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

4. Defendant [PROPERTY OWNER NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE/INDIVIDUAL] at [ADDRESS].

5. Defendant [EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER NAME] is a [ENTITY TYPE] at [ADDRESS].

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This Court has jurisdiction under Mo. Const. art. V, § 14.

7. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County pursuant to RSMo § 508.010.

Factual Allegations

8. The construction project at [PROJECT ADDRESS], [CITY], Missouri, was managed by Defendant General Contractor.

9. Plaintiff was employed by [EMPLOYER NAME] and performing work on [DATE OF ACCIDENT].

10. On [DATE OF ACCIDENT], Plaintiff was [DESCRIPTION OF WORK ACTIVITY] when [DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT].

11. Plaintiff sustained injuries including [DESCRIPTION OF INJURIES].

12. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against Plaintiff's employer (RSMo § 287.120). This action targets third parties under RSMo § 287.150.

Count I — Negligence

13. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

14. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care.

15. Defendants breached their duty by:

☐ Failing to provide fall protection
☐ Failing to maintain scaffolding and platforms
☐ Failing to secure hazardous areas
☐ Failing to provide PPE
☐ Failing to implement safety plans
☐ Failing to train workers
☐ Failing to conduct inspections
☐ Failing to warn of hazards
☐ Failing to coordinate subcontractor work
☐ [OTHER SPECIFIC NEGLIGENCE]

16. Defendants' negligence directly caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Count II — Premises Liability

17. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

18. Defendant Property Owner owed Plaintiff a duty as a business invitee.

19. Defendant Property Owner breached this duty by:

☐ Failing to maintain safe premises
☐ Failing to warn of hazards
☐ Retaining control over site safety
☐ [OTHER BREACHES]

20. The premises condition directly caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Worksite Safety Allegations Supporting Count I

21. Plaintiff incorporates these allegations into the negligence claim in Count I; they do not assert a separate damages claim under OSHA.

22. Defendant [NAME] controlled [SPECIFIC WORK OR CONDITION] at the worksite and owed Plaintiff an independent duty under [IDENTIFY THE SUPPORTED MISSOURI NEGLIGENCE BASIS].

23. At [PLACE AND TIME], Defendant [DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC UNSAFE ACT OR OMISSION], exposing Plaintiff to [HAZARD] and causing [INJURY]. [If an occupational safety standard covered this Defendant and activity, identify its current section, the covered conduct, and the supporting facts.]

24. The pleaded conduct supports the Count I negligence theory to the extent Missouri law permits; determine the applicable standard's evidentiary role before relying on it.

Count IV — Product Liability

25. Plaintiff re-alleges all preceding paragraphs.

26. Defendant Manufacturer designed, manufactured, and/or distributed [EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION].

27. The product was defective due to:

☐ Design defect
☐ Manufacturing defect
☐ Inadequate warnings

28. Under RSMo § 537.760 and Missouri common law (strict liability under Keener v. Dayton Electric Mfg. Co.), Defendant is liable.

29. The defective product directly caused Plaintiff's injuries.

Damages

30. Plaintiff has suffered:

a. Past and future medical expenses;
b. Past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity;
c. Physical pain and suffering;
d. Mental anguish and emotional distress;
e. Permanent disability and disfigurement;
f. Loss of enjoyment of life;
g. Loss of consortium (if applicable);
h. If leave to amend has been granted, punitive damages where clear and convincing evidence shows intentional harm without just cause or deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others (RSMo § 510.261; bifurcation procedure at § 510.263);
i. All other compensatory damages.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues pursuant to Mo. Const. art. I, § 22(a).

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems just. Plaintiff reserves any request for punitive damages for a later pleading only if the Court grants leave under RSMo § 510.261.5.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.
[BAR NUMBER]
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY], Missouri [ZIP CODE]
[PHONE] | [EMAIL]

Attorney for Plaintiff

Date: [__/__/____]

State-Specific Notes — Missouri

Workers' Compensation Exclusivity (RSMo § 287.120):

• Exclusive remedy against employer; third-party claims under § 287.150
• Construction employers with ONE or more employees must carry workers' comp
• Employer/insurer has subrogation lien on third-party recovery

Comparative Fault (Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983)):

• PURE comparative fault — plaintiff may recover even at 99% at fault
• Damages reduced by plaintiff's percentage of fault

Statute of Limitations:

• Personal injury: FIVE YEARS (RSMo § 516.120(4)) — among the longest in the nation
• Wrongful death: THREE YEARS (RSMo § 537.100)
• Workers' comp: TWO YEARS from injury

Damage Caps:

• No cap on compensatory damages in personal injury cases
• Punitive damages: limited and require clear and convincing evidence (RSMo § 510.263)

OSHA:

• Check whether federal OSHA covers the worksite and Defendant before relying on a federal construction standard

Court System:

• Circuit Court is the trial court of general jurisdiction

Sources and References:

• Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) (pure comparative fault for negligence claims); RSMo § 537.765 (pure comparative fault, products-liability claims only) — https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=537.765
• RSMo § 287.120 — Workers' Comp
• RSMo § 516.120 — Statute of Limitations