S.M.R. v. McDonald's Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 February 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. SD31456,SD31456 |
| Parties | S.M.R., a minor, by and through her Next Friend and Mother, LISA MARIE RYAN, JEFF MADISON RYAN, and LISA MARE RYAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, and KRIS DAVISON, INC., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TANEY COUNTY
AFFIRMED
Plaintiffs S.M.R. ("Daughter"), Jeff Madison Ryan ("Father"), and Lisa Marie Ryan ("Mother") appeal the judgment adopting a jury's verdict in favor of McDonald's Corporation and Kris Davison, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") on Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants were liable for Daughter's food-borne illness.1 Plaintiffs' specific factualallegation was that Daughter's E. coli 0157:H72 infection resulted from a defective cheeseburger she consumed at a McDonald's restaurant in Branson ("Restaurant") in July 2001.
Plaintiffs' sole claim on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion "in sustaining Defendants' motion in limine which prevented Plaintiffs from presenting evidence that three people besides [Daughter] were hospitalized with E. coli 0157:H7 infections within days of [Daughter] after eating hamburgers at a nearby McDonald's restaurant [("the Marshfield restaurant")] that was using the same meat supplier as [Restaurant.]" Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to exclude the evidence at issue, we affirm.
"[T]he trial court 'enjoys considerable discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence, and, absent clear abuse of discretion, its action will not be grounds for reversal.'" Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting State v. Mayes, 63 S.W.3d 615, 629 (Mo. banc 2001)). "The focus on appeal of a ruling excluding evidence is not whether evidence was admissible but on whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence." Payne v. Cornhusker Motor Lines, Inc., 177 S.W.3d 820, 836 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). "We presume the trial court's ruling to be correct, and reverse only when it is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock one's sense of justice." Eckerd v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 738, 743 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). "Evidence must be both logically and legally relevant to be admissible."Crow v. Crawford & Co., 259 S.W.3d 104, 122 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). "Logically relevant evidence makes a fact of consequence to the outcome of the case more or less probable, or corroborates other relevant evidence." Moon v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 351 S.W.3d 279, 285 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011). "Legal relevance requires balancing the probative value of the evidence versus its prejudicial effect on the jury." Eckerd, 289 S.W.3d at 743. "A court may exclude evidence that may have a prejudicial effect, even though the evidence is logically relevant, when the risk of unfair prejudice outweighs the probative value." Howard v. City of Kansas City, 332 S.W.3d 772, 786 (Mo. banc 2011).
Before the presentation of evidence began, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs should not be allowed to introduce evidence about illnesses Tabitha McLaughlin and two children, [S.M.] and [M.B.], suffered after they dined at the Marshfield restaurant.4 Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the other instances of illness involved "the same incident" and were not simply "similar occurrences" in that both Restaurant and the Marshfield restaurant received their meat from Lopez Foods, Inc. ("Lopez Foods"), and the other individuals fell ill "after eating a hamburger at [the Marshfield restaurant] within days of [Daughter] becoming ill[.]"
Defendants cited deposition testimony from their expert witness, Dr. Eugene Gangarosa, that different numbered strains of E. coli were identified for Daughter, M.B. and Ms. McLaughlin.5 According to Dr. Gangarosa, the numbers are used to refer to "a particular strain of the E. coli bacteria that's already been identified[.]" Plaintiffs'position was that they did not need expert testimony that there was "an outbreak" of E. coli 0157:H7, and just because one expert had indicated that the strains of E. coli 0157:H7 were not identical did not mean that the same source could not be involved. Defendants responded that presenting evidence about the other individuals would "end up" in a trial of all those claims because Defendants alleged "that there were all sorts of other potential causes" for the illnesses the other individuals had suffered. The trial court granted Defendants' motion in limine to exclude evidence of illnesses and claims by other persons.
At an appropriate time during the trial, Plaintiffs made an offer of proof regarding the evidence the court had indicated would be excluded. Kris Davison, the CEO of Kris Davison, Inc., testified that while someone else owned the Marshfield restaurant, "[t]o the best of [his] understanding" and "[a]s far as [he was] aware[,]" McDonald's restaurants in Missouri all received their meat from the same supplier, Lopez Foods. Mr. Davison testified that he owned and operated six McDonald's restaurants, including three in Branson, and that McDonald's Corporation controls various aspects of the restaurants run by its franchisees, including the type of grill used and the suppliers for beef products.
Plaintiffs' offer of proof also included Ms. McLaughlin's testimony that on July 21, 2001, she and her daughter "had cheeseburgers [at the Marshfield restaurant]" and "a couple of days" later they both "got very sick." Ms. McLaughlin said that her daughter was hospitalized. Ms. McLaughlin had been "told" that both of their illnesses resulted from Plaintiffs' counsel also informed the trial court that he "was unable to get . . . the mother of [M.B.]" to court at that particular moment, but he anticipated that she would testify that on July 9, 2001 her daughter ate a cheeseburger at the Marshfieldrestaurant and then "developed E. coli infection and HUS." 6 The foregoing constituted the entirety of Plaintiffs' offer of proof. At its conclusion, the trial court maintained its decision to exclude the proffered evidence.
The evidence at trial was that on July 2, 2001, Plaintiffs, accompanied by other children in the family, traveled from the Kansas City area and picked up Mother's mother ("Grandmother") in Bolivar to vacation in Branson. Daughter was eight years old at the time. Grandmother kept a journal of the trip that was admitted into evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 14. The family first ate together on the trip at a "KFC" restaurant. Later that day, they ate "salad food" they had brought with them. That night, Daughter had cheese pizza. The next morning, July 3rd, Daughter ate cereal at the hotel. Grandmother did not eat because she had a stomach ache. Later that same day, the family ate "at McDonald's" near one of the Branson tourist attractions they visited, and Daughter "had a cheeseburger Happy Meal." That evening, the family went to a dinner show, but Daughter "was not feeling good at all." On the morning of July 4th, Daughter threw up repeatedly, and Mother and Father took her to the hospital, where she received an IV and an injection before being released. That same morning, Grandmother was "hurting so bad" that she "curled up in a ball[.]" On July 5th, Daughter was "still not getting better[,]" and the family returned home.
On the morning of July 6th, Daughter had diarrhea that included blood, and she was again taken to the hospital. Dr. Alon testified that Daughter's medical records from her hospitalization in July 2001 included a positive test for on July 8,2001. Daughter also developed HUS, but Dr. Alon agreed that "somewhere between August and November of 2001" Daughter "achieved complete recovery from HUS[.]"
Dr. James Marsden, a university research coordinator, whose field was "food safety and security" (focused primarily on "meat and poultry products"), testified for Plaintiffs that he had reviewed Daughter's medical records and "some depositions" of Plaintiffs. He explained that Dr. Marsden said that E. coli 0157:H7 is primarily, but not exclusively, associated with cattle. He testified that meat may be contaminated during the slaughtering process with bacteria from the hide or intestinal track of the animal. Dr. Marsden said that although additional precautions are in place now, "many interventions were in place in 2001" to prevent E. coli 0157:H7 from winding up in meat, but ultimately 7 He testified that other foods, such as lettuce and spinach, may be contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7 when manure from nearby cattle farms is blown in the air as dust and then settles on the plants. Dr. Marsden also testified that cross-contamination can happen in the home during food preparation and that the bacteria may also be transmitted directly from person to person.
Another expert witness for Plaintiffs, Dr. Archana Chatterjee, specialized in "pediatric infectious diseases." Her work on the case involved "review[ing the] medical literature and review[ing] the documents that [Plaintiffs' counsel's] office sent [her]." Dr.Chatterjee agreed that "many potential sources . . . for 0157:H7 exposure" exist, and outbreaks have been associated with raw vegetables and "other raw foods." She confirmed that in the course of her work she did not "obtain any information that anyone else who ate at [Restaurant] on July 3, 2001, was sickened[.]" Dr. Chatterjee had written an article noting an incubation period of the infection of one to five days, but she agreed that the incubation period for E. coli 0157:H7 averages three to four days. She admitted that...
To continue reading
Request your trial