Jeffery Pinnell v. City of Union, Missouri ( 2019 )

In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Eastern District
DIVISION THREE
JEFFERY PINNELL, ) No. ED106881
)
Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of
) Franklin County
vs. ) 15AB-CC00291
)
CITY OF UNION, MISSOURI, ) Honorable Gael D. Wood
)
Respondent. ) Filed: May 14, 2019
OPINION
Jeffery Pinnell appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County that granted
the City of Union, Missouri’s motion for a directed verdict in this personal injury lawsuit on the
grounds that Pinnell failed to make a submissible case for waiver of the City’s sovereign immunity
under § 537.600.11. Because we find Pinnell adduced substantial evidence that at the time of his
fall from the South Oak Street bridge in Union, the City’s property was in a dangerous condition
precluding the entry of a directed verdict, we reverse and remand.
1
All statutory references are to RSMo 2016.
Background
This action arose from the injuries Pinnell sustained on September 9, 2015 when he lost
his balance while sitting on the headwall of a short bridge or culvert2 on South Oak Street, a public
roadway in Union, and fell 13 feet down into the creek below. The features of the bridge relevant
to this case included north-south traffic lanes, a pedestrian sidewalk separated from the traffic lanes
by a curb, and a headwall from which Pinnell fell, located immediately adjacent to the sidewalk.
The term “headwall” refers to a curb-like structure approximately 18 to 20 inches high and 18 to
20 inches wide, running parallel to the road surface along the westernmost edge of the bridge.
Pinnell filed a one-count negligence lawsuit against the City alleging that it maintained the
bridge with its sidewalk and headwall in a dangerous condition that caused his fall and injuries.
Specifically, he averred that where Oak Street passed over the creek, at a height of 13 feet from
the creek bed to the bridge surface, the City “maintained a sidewalk for pedestrian use” on the
western side of the roadway, “thereby encouraging pedestrian traffic thereupon,” even though
between the sidewalk and the precipitous drop down to the creek there was only a curb-like
structure approximately 18 to 20 inches high—the headwall—which was substantially shorter than
the average person’s center of gravity. He further alleged that the City, by maintaining such a low
headwall, “encourage[d], entice[d], or otherwise invite[d] the public to sit upon” it. As a result,
Pinnell claimed, the City failed to “adequately protect” the public from the foreseeable risk of
falling over the headwall and into the creek below, and therefore the City’s premises were in a
dangerous condition.
2
The structure in question was referred to during the lawsuit as a “culvert” and as a “bridge.” For
ease of understanding, we will use the term “bridge” in this opinion and note that the difference is
immaterial for purposes of this appeal.
2