James v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 109,046.,109,046. |
| Citation | 292 P.3d 10 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | Lee Weldon JAMES, Carolyn Jones, Bobby Nall, Barbara Nall, Shirley Potts, Carla Holmes, P & H Partnership, Steve Pratt, Vicki Pratt, Linda Strawn, and Gloria Michelle Strawn, Plaintiffs/Appellees, and Rusty Armstrong, Diane Armstrong, Tim Bartlett, Jimmy Beam, Cheryl Callaway, Burl G. Chappell, Mike Converse, Tonya Converse, Darlene Gibson, Darlene Gibson Farm, Jerry L. Dollarhide, Jeff Engler, William L. Evans, Hazel Fennell, James D. Gamble, Johnny Gilbreath, Gilbreath Farm, Wanda Goodman, J & W Farm, Justin Graham, Rocky Green, Rebecca Green, Blaine Horton, Ernestine Horton, Ginger Johnson, Billy Johnson, James E. Latta, Ivan Lowrey, Sandra Meeks, Judy Gale Nichols, Tracy C. Pond, Wesley Roberts, Carlene Sharrock, Richard Smith, Larry D. Stewart, Benny Strawn, Lewis Timbes, Roger W. Virgin, Jeff Donald Watson, Earl Westbrook, Joyce Westbrook, Linda Westbrook, and Ladonna Williams, Plaintiffs, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; Tyson Poultry, Inc.; Russell Adams, Defendants/Appellants, and Harriet Piper, Defendant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the District Court of McCurtain County.
¶ 0 Fifty-four individuals and business entities [plaintiffs] sued the appellants/defendants, Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Poultry, Inc., and Russell Adams [collectively, Tyson], in association with contracts under which they were to raise chickens owned by Tyson on feed supplied by the company. Tyson moved to sever the claims for separate trials. The trial judge denied the motion, allowing the plaintiffs to select eleven individuals and entities [appellees/plaintiffs, poultry growers, growers] to proceed to trial under theories of violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act [Consumer Protection Act], 15 O.S.2001 § 751 et seq., negligence, and fraud. The poultry growers contended that Tyson targeted them for failure by delivering unhealthy birds and feed in retaliation for their refusal to modernize operations. The jury, in a nine to three split, awarded the growers compensatory and punitive damages approaching $10 million. Alleging evidentiary errors and juror misconduct, Tyson filed a motion for new trial. The trial judge recused and the new trial motion was heard by an assigned judge. Acknowledging concerns about the conduct of the trial, the substitute judge denied the motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, staying further proceedings pending resolution of the appeal. We hold that: 1) under the facts presented, where attorneys were advised that voir dire would be limited to questions not covered in the juror questionnaire and jurors gave incomplete, untruthful, and/or misleading answers in those documents, the appellants are entitled to a new trial; and 2) a poultry grower having no title to the chickensor feed placed with the grower for fattening and future marketing of the birds by the flock's owner is not an “aggrieved consumer” for purposes of the Consumer Protection Act.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Michael Burrage, Whitten Burrage Law Firm, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Bill W. Burgess, Burgess & Hightower Law Firm, Lawton, Oklahoma, Robert T. Adams, pro hac vice, John S. Johnston, pro hac vice, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, Missouri, for Defendants/Appellants.
Glenn D. Adams, Norman, Oklahoma, Jim Loftis, Loftis & Barnard, Norman, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellees.
¶ 1 At the behest of Tyson and with the agreement of the poultry growers, we retained this cause to address two questions. The first is whether Tyson is entitled to a new trial under facts where questioning was limited to matters not covered by the jury questionnaire and the answers given in that document were incomplete, untruthful, and/or misleading. The second is a first impression issue: whether poultry growers, having no title to the chickens or the feed in their possession, are “aggrieved consumers” entitled to the protections of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act [Consumer Protection Act], 15 O.S.2001 § 751 et seq.?
¶ 2 Dominion Bank of Middle Tenn. v. Masterson, 1996 OK 99, 928 P.2d 291 is instructive on the first issue. It holds that where a juror's answer to a question regarding his involvement in civil litigation prevented legal counsel from delving deeper into the juror's qualifications, a new trial was warranted. Here, jurors gave incomplete, misleading, and/or false answers on juror questionnaires. Additionally, attorneys were advised that they could not ask questions already covered in those documents. Under these facts, the appellants are entitled to a new trial.
¶ 3 The instant cause resolved only a fraction of the lawsuits pending between Tyson and the growers, all of which involve the question of whether the contract growers are “aggrieved consumers” entitled to the protections of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. We answer the second question as a matter of public policy and in an attempt to eliminate the squandering of the parties' time and money, legal, and judicial resources. Recently, in Lumber 2, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 2011 OK 74, 261 P.3d 1143, we held that a purchaser of goods for resale was not a consumer entitled to the protection of the Consumer Protection Act. Consistent with our reasoning in Lumber 2, we determine that the contract growers are not “aggrieved consumers” entitled to the protections of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.1
¶ 4 Tyson is an integrated poultry company. Such companies operate a system wherein they contract with independent growers to raise chickens owned and provided by the company.2 Tyson places chicks with an independent grower for the grow-out period, providing the grower with feed. It is the growers' responsibility to raise the chickens to a target processing weight. Once the flock reaches maturity, Tyson transports the chickens to its processing plant. It may also take possession of any feed remaining on the growers' farms at the end of the growing cycle.
¶ 5 The poultry company retains title to the birds and the materials provided for their development while the chickens are in the care of the independent grower.3 Tyson pays its growers according to a formula that measures the relative productivity of the growers by comparing the amount of feed provided and the weight of the chickens at maturity.4
¶ 6 On May 8, 2008, fifty-four (54) growers filed suit against Tyson. Although they did not allege any contractual breach, they asserted that the company committed negligence, fraud, and violated the Consumer Protection Act. The growers insisted that they were targeted with poor quality birds and feed because they refused to upgrade their chicken houses from conventional to “cool cell” facilities.
¶ 7 Tyson's request that the cause be severed and that individual trials be conducted was denied. Instead, the trial court ordered that the cases be divided so that groups of individuals/farms constituted the plaintiffs in each action. The first trial consisted of eleven (11) plaintiffs representing seven (7) farms.
¶ 8 The jury trial commenced on March 10, 2010, and continued for approximately three weeks. Nine members of the jury found in favor of the growers on all counts while three jurors were unconvinced of Tyson's alleged wrong-doing. The plaintiffs were awarded compensatory and punitive damages of approximately $10 million.
¶ 9 Following the trial, Tyson filed a motion requesting that the trial judge disqualify himself 5 based on a variety of concerns. After an in camera hearing held on May 28, 2010, the trial judge agreed to recuse himself because he did not feel he could be impartial towards a recently appearing attorney of record. Thereafter, the Chief Justice assigned a substitute judge.
¶ 10 Tyson filed a motion for new trial on June 9, 2010. After the hearing on the motion on July 18th and despite grave misgivings expressed by the new trial judge, the motion was overruled.6 The new trial judge stated continuing concerns when the motion to stay further trials in the cause pending resolution of the current appeal was argued on October 27, 2010.7
¶ 11 Further trials were stayed pending appeal of this cause on December 3, 2010. On December 28, 2010, Tyson filed its petition in error along with an unopposed motion to retain. The motion to retain was granted on January 19, 2011. Although the briefing cycle was completed on June 14, 2011, the final record filings were not concluded until July 18th.
¶ 12 The trial judge ruling on the motion for new trial found himself in an unfamiliar position.8 He did not: preside at the trial; hear the testimony; observe the witnesses; or have full knowledge of the proceedings during the trial process. Were that the case, it is well settled that our review standard would be one of abuse of discretion.9 Abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court errs with respect to a pure, simple, and unmixed question of law 10 or where the trial court acts arbitrarily.11 Nevertheless, the strength of the showing for error or abuse of discretion is much less when the trial court refuses to grant a new trial than when such a motion is sustained.12
¶ 13 Like the assigned judge, we find ourselves in a unique situation. One judge conducted the trial and the second, assigned judge heard the request for new trial. We have a transcript of that hearing and all filings associated with the motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Because we are in as good a position to address the issues presented as the second,13 assigned judge hearing the respective motions, our review is de novo.14
¶ 14 We must also address an issue of law intricately entwined in the trial process: whether the contract growers are “aggrieved consumers” entitled to the protections of the Consumer Protection Act. This is a legal question involving statutory interpretation. It, also, is subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beyrer v. Mule, LLC
... ... McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood , 464 U.S. 548, 555, 104 S.Ct. 845, 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984) ... We decline to adopt Beyrer's view of Fields ... 40 In James v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 62 another opinion from 2012, the jurors gave ... ...
-
Miller v. State
...was unable to firmly state that she could consider the death penalty). 72. This Court notes that just last year, in James v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2012 OK 21, 292 P.3d 10 (2012), the Oklahoma Supreme Court emphasized the vital importance of allowing counsel to ask probing questions of prospect......
-
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Penn Square Mall Ltd. P'ship
...merely results in damages for breach of contract, not independent tort liability." James v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 2012 OK 21, ¶ 16 n.16, 292 P.3d 10 (citation omitted). We interpret this statement to mean that, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in a separate case cited by Penn Square, "[c]......
-
Ellison v. Michael D. Campbell, an Individual, & M.D. Campbell & Assocs., L.P.
...his request for investigatory work ($105,663.33). [These two figures total $418,312.15.] 11.James v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2012 OK 21, ¶ 12, 292 P.3d 10; B–Star, Inc. v. Polyone Corp., 2005 OK 8, ¶ 13, 114 P.3d 1082; Head v. McCracken, 2004 OK 84, ¶ 2, 102 P.3d 670; Evers v. FSF Overlake Assoc......