Martinez v. Lobster Haven, LLC

• Decision Date: 05 May 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 2D19-2399
• Citation: 320 So.3d 873
• Parties: Angel MARTINEZ and Maria Elena Martinez, Appellants, v. LOBSTER HAVEN, LLC, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

320 So.3d 873

Angel MARTINEZ and Maria Elena Martinez, Appellants,

v.LOBSTER HAVEN, LLC, Appellee.

Case No. 2D19-2399

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 5, 2021.

Rehearing Denied July 2, 2021

Brent G. Steinberg, Brandon G. Cathey, and Daniel L. Greene of Swope, Rodante, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

Alexandra Valdes and Scott A. Cole of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.

BLACK, Judge.

Angel and Maria Martinez challenge the final judgment entered in favor of Lobster Haven, LLC. The Martinezes contend that the trial court erred in granting Lobster Haven's posttrial motion for entry of judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict. We agree.

I. Background

"The rules governing a posttrial motion for judgment in accordance with a previous motion for directed verdict are the same as those governing a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence." Greene v. Flewelling, 366 So. 2d 777, 779-80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (first citing Hendricks v. Dailey, 208 So. 2d 101, 103 (Fla. 1968) ; and then citing Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So. 2d 375, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) ). Accordingly, in reviewing the propriety of the order granting judgment in accordance with the motion for a directed verdict in this case, we view factually conflicting evidence in favor of the Martinezes. See Sims v. Cristinzio, 898 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

On December 21, 2013, the Martinezes had a seafood dinner, including raw oysters, at Lobster Haven. That night and the following day, the Martinezes were ill. It was undisputed that Mr. Martinez suffered from a gastrointestinal illness that began on December 21. On December 24, 2013, Mr. Martinez experienced more severe gastrointestinal symptoms and did not feel well until December 31. On January 4, 2014, two weeks after his dinner at Lobster Haven, Mr. Martinez began experiencing pain, numbness, and weakness in his legs and feet. Mr. Martinez was seen at the hospital on three occasions and was admitted to the hospital on January 9. He was ultimately diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), a disorder in which the body's immune system attacks the nerves. It was undisputed that Mr. Martinez had GBS. Mr. Martinez was not discharged from the hospital until February 21. In August 2015, the Martinezes sued Lobster Haven, alleging that the restaurant had served them contaminated seafood that was a legal cause of Mr. Martinez's GBS.

The case went to trial in August 2017. During that trial, the Martinezes presented expert testimony from Dr. Michael Freeman, an epidemiologist. Lobster Haven had previously filed a motion to strike Dr. Freeman as an expert witness or, alternatively, in limine to preclude Dr. Freeman from testifying to his opinion on causation. The motion in limine was based on what Lobster Haven identified as impermissibly stacked inferences used to form Dr. Freeman's opinion. The inferences identified by Lobster Haven were (1) that the oysters served to Mr. Martinez by Lobster Haven contained bacteria or a pathogen; (2) that the level of bacteria or pathogen present was sufficient to cause a gastrointestinal infection (GI infection); and (3) that the GI infection caused GBS. In opposing Lobster Haven's motion, the Martinezes primarily contended that Lobster Haven's argument was not a pretrial issue determinable by a motion to strike or a motion in limine. Rather, the issue could and should be addressed on cross-examination of Dr. Freeman and via a motion for a directed verdict. The Martinezes represented that Dr. Freeman's testimony would address whether the food at Lobster Haven caused the December 21 GI infection which then caused the GBS. Both parties' characterizations of the issue establish that the foundational fact which the Martinezes were required to prove was that the food served by Lobster Haven and consumed by Mr. Martinez was defective and caused the December 21 GI infection. Lobster Haven's motion was denied, and Dr. Freeman was permitted to testify at trial.¹

The 2017 trial resulted in a deadlocked jury, and the court granted a mistrial. A new trial was set for May 2018. At the final pretrial hearing before the 2018 trial, the parties discussed various stipulations including preservation of issues from the 2017 trial. Counsel for the Martinezes deferred to Lobster Haven's counsel to explain the stipulation reached by the parties; Lobster Haven's counsel advised the court:

[T]here were several evidentiary issues in the case that we had, I think, a day-long motion in limine hearing. And what we had discussed is instead of having to reargue those, to make sure that both sides have preserved those for any appellate issues that might come up, to just adopt the Court's prior rulings regarding evidence, regarding the jury instructions that we went through; and both sides have just preserved their previous objections or motions in limine that we had argued.

Importantly, prior to the 2018 trial, Lobster Haven stipulated that the food it had served to the Martinezes had "a defect." That is, Lobster Haven admitted that its food caused the December 21 food poisoning.² Lobster Haven's counsel repeatedly asserted during the 2018 trial that Lobster Haven was not contesting that the food served to Mr. Martinez led to the December 21 GI infection.

In his testimony at the 2018 trial, Dr. Freeman opined that the December 21 GI infection—the GI infection Lobster Haven stipulated that it had caused—was the event that caused Mr. Martinez's GBS. In reaching that opinion, Dr. Freeman testified that he did not know what bacteria or pathogen was in the food served to Mr. Martinez by Lobster Haven or which of the foods that Mr. Martinez had consumed caused the GI infection. He also testified, however, that it was the GI infection and more precisely Mr. Martinez's immune system response to the infection that was the cause of the GBS.

While acknowledging that the preceding cause of GBS is unknown in about 20% of cases, Dr. Freeman stated that when a GI infection "precedes GBS by anything less than three or four or five weeks ... the relationship between the two is always going to be considered causal." That is, "whatever was in th[e] meal accounts for 100% of the explanation of [the GI infection] which accounts for 100% of the explanation for [the GBS]"; "[w]hen a GI infection precedes GBS, 100% of the time you are going to attribute the GBS to the infection." Dr. Freeman further testified that although a second GI infection was possible, it was very unlikely and "certainly not a more likely explanation" for the GBS than the December 21 GI infection. Dr. Freeman saw "no evidence of likelihood" of a second GI infection in this case.

The Martinezes also presented the testimony of Dr. Adam Didio. Dr. Didio testified as an expert and as one of Mr. Martinez's treating physicians. He is a neurologist familiar with GBS, having treated approximately 140 patients with the disorder. In addition to providing details regarding Mr. Martinez's symptoms and prognosis, Dr. Didio gave his expert opinion that Mr. Martinez's GBS was "directly caused or triggered from his gastrointestinal illness" which began on December 21, 2013. Dr. Didio testified that the majority of patients with GBS report having had an infection, most often a GI infection, in the weeks preceding the onset of the GBS symptoms and that Mr. Martinez's December 21 GI infection fit the timeframe. He also stated that he did not know which pathogen might have caused Mr. Martinez's GI infection but that identifying the pathogen has no bearing on the outcome; the infection, and more specifically the body's immune system response to the infection, is what causes GBS.

Lobster Haven presented the expert testimony of Dr. Kenneth Gorson. Dr. Gorson described GBS as an autoimmune disease, with two-thirds of the cases having an identifiable immunological trigger—an infection. He testified that in those cases it is the patient's immune response to the infection that triggers GBS. Dr. Gorson agreed with Dr. Freeman that in the remaining cases the cause of GBS is unknown; that is, an infection did not precede the onset of GBS symptoms. He also agreed with Dr. Freeman that GBS is not linked to a single bacteria or pathogen but testified that knowing which bacteria was present in food would be "good" or helpful for purposes of understanding "the mechanism of the illness." Dr. Gorson testified that there is a particular bacteria that causes GI infections and is "disproportionately" linked to triggering GBS. His opinion was that the oysters served by Lobster Haven had not caused Mr. Martinez's GBS; he did not give an opinion on whether the December 21 GI infection caused the GBS. Dr. Gorson also testified that people suffering from a GI infection did not typically "get back to normal" and then experience a resurgence of symptoms; but he agreed that it was more plausible to have vacillating symptoms of a single GI infection than to have a complete recovery from one GI infection only to develop a second GI infection within two days.³

The jury was instructed that Lobster Haven had served defective food to the Martinezes and that

[a] defective product is a legal cause of loss, injury, or damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such loss, injury or damage, so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the defect or negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

In order to be regarded as a legal cause of loss, injury or damage, a defect need not be the only cause. A defect may be a legal cause of loss, injury or damage even though it operates in combination with some natural cause or some other cause if the defect contributes substantially to producing such loss, injury or damage.

The only question presented to the jury on the verdict form, other than damages-related determinations, was whether the defective food was a...