David Stults v. International Flavors, etc
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4181
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff David Stults consumed microwave popcorn heavily for ~20 years and was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans in 2009, which he attributed to diacetyl in butter flavoring. Plaintiffs are Michigan residents; defendants include International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (IFF).
- Plaintiffs sued on multiple theories under Michigan law; only the breach-of-implied-warranty claim against IFF (and related loss-of-consortium) went to trial in federal diversity court.
- Experts conflicted: plaintiffs’ experts linked Stults’s disease to diacetyl exposure from consumer popcorn; defense experts attributed the disease to a rheumatoid/autoimmune process. Credibility and timing of exposure were contested.
- Two defense witnesses had portions of testimony struck (Dr. Meehan for relying on unproduced materials; Dr. Robbins for an excluded “popcorn experiment”); the court gave curative instructions. Plaintiffs later relied on juror interviews claiming the jury considered stricken testimony.
- Plaintiffs moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing (1) improper/stricken testimony prejudiced the jury, (2) verdict was against the weight of evidence, and (3) IFF failed to prove affirmative defenses. The district court denied relief; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new trial was required due to stricken testimony (Dr. Meehan) | Meehan’s stricken testimony prejudiced jury; curative instruction insufficient; jurors later said they relied on it | Stricken testimony is not "extraneous"; curative instruction presumptively effective; no plain error or intent by counsel | Affirmed — no new trial; court found no overwhelming probability jury ignored instruction and Rule 606(b) barred juror inquiry |
| Whether juror misconduct or reliance on stricken testimony required evidentiary hearing | Post-trial juror statements showed reliance on stricken evidence, so hearing required | Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about deliberations; only extraneous influences permit inquiry | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in denying hearing; Rule 606(b) limits inquiry |
| Whether other expert testimony (Dr. Robbins, Dr. Wolters) required a new trial | Robbins’ excluded experiment and Wolters’ alleged failure to rule out diacetyl were prejudicial and scientifically invalid | Credibility issues for jury; exclusion/curative instructions proper; expert disagreements are for jury | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; credibility conflicts for jury to resolve |
| Whether judgment as a matter of law was appropriate | Plaintiffs argued certain warranty elements were undisputed and IFF failed to prove affirmative defenses | Factual disputes existed (hazard in consumer context, timing of exposure); plaintiffs bore burden to prove defect and causation | Affirmed — reasonable jurors could differ; JMOL denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Behlmann v. Century Sur. Co., 794 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (U.S. 1987) (presumption that juries follow curative instructions)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (curative instruction authority)
- Horstmyer v. Black & Decker, 151 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 1998) (plain-error review for forfeited objections)
- Warger v. Shauers, 721 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2013) (definition of extraneous information and Rule 606(b) limits; aff'd on other grounds)
- Tedder v. Am. Railcar Indus., Inc., 739 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2014) (differential diagnosis and consideration of alternative causes)
- Jones v. Edwards, 770 F.2d 739 (8th Cir. 1985) (standard for granting judgment as a matter of law)