Brandon Stachulski v. Apple New England, LLC, 191 A.3d 1231

Background

Plaintiff Brandon Stachulski sued Apple New England, LLC (Applebee’s) under strict products liability after developing non-typhoidal salmonella following a February 2014 restaurant meal; jury awarded $750,000.
Defendant disputed the hamburger as the source, pointing to plaintiff’s pet lizard and other possible exposures.
Plaintiff’s causation proof relied on medical records, his and relatives’ testimony, and expert infectious-disease testimony from Dr. Seth D. Rosenbaum (differential etiology).
Defendant moved in limine to exclude testimony about belated lizard testing and to exclude Rosenbaum’s expert testimony; both motions were denied.
Trial evidence included plaintiff’s symptoms/timing within salmonella incubation period, brother‑in‑law’s similar illness after same meal, voluminous medical records describing ongoing post‑infectious GI problems, and expert testimony that up to one‑third of salmonella cases have prolonged complaints.
Trial court denied defendant’s post‑verdict motions (JNOV, directed verdict on various damage categories, and remittitur); on appeal the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of allegedly prejudicial testimony (e.g., belated lizard testing)	Testimony was admissible and part of factual record for jury to weigh	Trial court should have excluded as unfairly prejudicial	Appeal failed for lack of record showing trial court error; denial stands
Admissibility of Rosenbaum’s expert testimony	Rosenbaum used differential etiology and sufficient facts; methodology reliable	Opinion lacked sufficient facts/methods and thus was unreliable under RSA 516:29‑a/Daubert principles	Trial court did not unsustainably exercise discretion; Rosenbaum admissible
Causation (hamburger caused salmonella)	Timing, brother‑in‑law’s symptoms, medical records, and expert opinion made causation more likely than not	Alternative sources (lizard, home food) made causation speculative; JNOV warranted	Sufficient conflicting evidence for jury; denial of JNOV upheld
Future pain and suffering (necessity of expert proof)	Medical records, plaintiff testimony, and Rosenbaum’s opinion sufficiently showed likely future symptoms	Expert evidence was required to submit future damages to jury	Court held evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably award future pain and suffering
Hedonic damages (permanency requirement)	Hedonic damages available for plaintiff’s loss of enjoyment even if temporary	Hedonic damages require proof of permanent impairment	Court held hedonic damages need not be limited to permanent impairment; submission to jury proper
Counsel’s opening/closing statements (plain error)	Statements were fair inferences from evidence	Statements were improper appeals to emotion; trial court should have struck them sua sponte	No plain error: statements drew from admitted evidence; no new trial required
Remittitur (excessiveness of $750,000 award)	Verdict supported by evidence of lifestyle limitations, ongoing care, and hedonic loss	Award was manifestly exorbitant given ~$43,000 medical bills	Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying remittitur; award not manifestly exorbitant

Key Cases Cited

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial court gatekeeper for expert reliability)
Osman v. Lin, 169 N.H. 329 (N.H. 2016) (applying RSA 516:29‑a/Daubert framework; standard of review for expert admissibility)
Goudreault v. Kleeman, 158 N.H. 236 (N.H. 2009) (differential etiology recognized as reliable methodology)
Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 1999) (describing differential etiology approach)
Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co., 152 N.H. 813 (N.H. 2005) (strict products liability proximate cause standard; remittitur review)
Bennett v. Lembo, 145 N.H. 276 (N.H. 2000) (discussion of hedonic damages and their purpose)
Reed v. County of Hillsborough, 148 N.H. 590 (N.H. 2002) (when lay testimony suffices vs. need for expert to avoid speculation)