Gast v. Shell Oil Co. (1991)

In Missouri, “[a]fter [an] owner accepts a structure, the general rule is that a general contractor is not hable to persons with whom he did not contract.” Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo. banc 1991).

Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 371 (Mo. banc 1991) citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 385 comment d (1965).

Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo. banc 1991).

Gast v. Shell Oil Company, 819 S.W.2d 367, 368 (Mo. banc 1991) involved a wrongful death 11 suit by the parents of a gas station cashier who was shot during a robbery.

For example, in Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo. 1991), the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a contractor could not be “faulted for” the design of a door “because the specifications directed that this be done.” Id.

For example, in Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo. 1991), the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a contractor could not be “faulted for” the design of a door “because the specifications directed that this be done.” Id.

For example, in Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo. 1991), the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a contractor could not be “faulted for” the design of a door “because the specifications directed that this be done.” Id.

Becker v. Setien, 904 S.W.2d 338, 343-45 (Mo.Ct.App.1995); Roskowske v. Iron Mountain Forge Corp., 897 S.W.2d 67 , 71 (Mp.Ct.App.1995); Coleman v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 859 S.W.2d 141, 145 (Mo.Ct.App.1993); Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370-71 (Mo. 1991); Casey v. Hoover, 114 Mo.App. 47 , 89 S.W. 330, 335 (1905). .

Acceptance Doctrine CEG next argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the acceptance doctrine, “which relieves contractors of liability to those not parties to the contract after the owner accepts the contractor’s work.” Fisher v. State Highway Comm’n, 948 S.W.2d 607, 611 (Mo.1997) (citing Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo. banc 1991)); Rogers v. Frank C.

Id. (quoting Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 376 (Mo. banc 1991)). 22 .

Our Supreme Court in Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 371 (Mo. banc 1991), held that after the owner accepts a structure, the general contractor is generally not liable to persons with whom he did not contract, but set forth exceptions to the acceptance doctrine, imposing liability on the contractor after acceptance by the owner if: (1) the defect is imminently dangerous to others; (2) the defect is so hidden that a reasonably careful inspection would not reveal it; an…

This is so, in that, as opposed to the corporation, in order to find the respondents liable as general contractors for the alleged defect in the restaurant premises, the appellant was required to overcome the “acceptance doctrine, which relieves contractors of liability to those not parties to the contract after the owner accepts the contractor’s work.” Fisher v. State Highway Comm’n, 948 S.W.2d 607, 611 (Mo. banc 1997) (citing Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo.…

Gast , at 370-371; see also, Bloemer v. Art Welding Co., 884 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Mo.App.1994) (contractor's compliance with customer's plans and specifications, with limited exceptions, is complete defense to strict liability and negligence claims of design defect).

Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo. banc 1991).

Gast, 819 S.W.2d at 370 (emphasis added).

Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo. banc 1991).

“The duty arises from circumstances in which there is a foreseeable likelihood that particular acts or omissions will cause harm or injury.” Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 376 (Mo. banc 1991). “[I]t is immaterial that the precise manner in which the injury occurred was neither foreseen nor foreseeable.” Pierce v. Platte-Clay Elec.

Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367, 370 (Mo. banc 1991).

Co., 358 S.W.2d at 791 [9]; Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d at 371 [2]. *148 There is no allegation of the ultimate fact of an imminently dangerous defect so hidden and concealed that a reasonably careful inspection would not reveal, nor of evidentiary fact from which that ultimate fact could be inferred, in either the Count I pleading against the City as incorporated into the Count II pleading against contractor Hunt, or of the City and Hunt pleadings then incorporated in…

“After the owner accepts a structure, the general rule is that a general contractor is not liable to persons with whom he did not contract.” Id. (citation omitted); accord Gast v. Shell Oil Co., 819 S.W.2d 367 , 369–70 (Mo. banc 1991).

See id.