127 N.E.3d 1205
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- On April 28, 2013, Kristina Lenart ate barbeque chicken wings at a Golden Corral buffet and within ~1–2 hours developed severe vomiting and diarrhea; she was hospitalized and later underwent surgery for an umbilical hernia and subsequent corrective surgeries.
- Lenart’s family observed undercooked/plain chicken wings on the buffet that day; a customer complaint prompted a manager to discard a returned plain wing and offer refunds. Golden Corral’s buffet temperature logs for that date were not preserved (logs are retained only 90 days).
- Lenart sued Golden Corral for negligence (failure to prepare/serve safe food). Golden Corral pleaded defenses including that the Indiana Products Liability Act (IPLA) applied and that it was not negligent.
- Dr. Julie Hutchinson (general surgeon) offered causation opinion based on differential diagnosis that Lenart’s vomiting was caused by a foodborne pathogen from undercooked chicken and that the vomiting caused the hernia; Golden Corral challenged admissibility under Evid. R. 702 but did not object at trial to the deposition/rebuttal testimony.
- The trial court admitted Hutchinson’s testimony, gave jury instructions on spoliation and res ipsa loquitur over Golden Corral’s objections, and denied Golden Corral’s motions for judgment on the evidence; the jury returned a $240,000 verdict for Lenart.
- On appeal the court affirmed: it found Golden Corral waived the Evid. R. 702 challenge at trial, sufficient evidence supported proximate cause, the spoliation and res ipsa instructions were proper, and the IPLA did not exclusively govern the claim because the restaurant’s cooking did not create a new product or make it a manufacturer under the IPLA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony (Evid. R. 702) | Hutchinson’s differential diagnosis reliably links foodborne illness to Golden Corral wings | Hutchinson’s methodology was unreliable; she failed to rule out other causes and relied on temporal association | Golden Corral waived the trial objection; court also held methodology sufficiently reliable — admissible; challenges go to weight, not admissibility |
| Sufficiency of evidence / proximate cause | Temporal proximity, lack of prior GI issues, expert opinion, and other patrons’ complaints support causation | Evidence is circumstantial/speculative and lacks definitive scientific proof | Sufficient evidence existed to withstand motions for judgment on the evidence; jury could reasonably find proximate cause |
| Jury instructions: spoliation | Golden Corral had duty to preserve buffet logs after notice and failure supports adverse inference | No intentional destruction and no duty to preserve the returned plain wing | Spoliation instruction warranted as to temperature logs (Golden Corral had notice/duty); lack of duty to preserve the plain wing did not require reversal |
| Jury instructions: res ipsa loquitur | The nature and circumstances (undercooked wings, exclusive control, illness shortly after eating) permit inference of negligence | Plaintiff cannot identify instrumentality exclusively controlled by GC or exclude other causes | Res ipsa loquitur instruction appropriate; sufficient evidence of exclusive control and probability of negligence; burden shifted to defendant to explain |
| Applicability of the IPLA | Plaintiff: claim is primarily a negligence/service claim, GC not a "manufacturer" under IPLA | GC: cooking/processing constitutes manufacture or substantial alteration making IPLA exclusive remedy | Trial court correctly held IPLA did not govern; cooking did not create a new product or make GC a manufacturer under the IPLA |
Key Cases Cited
- Clausen v. State, 622 N.E.2d 925 (Ind. 1993) (trial court’s in limine ruling does not determine ultimate admissibility)
- Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790 (Ind. 2008) (failure to object at trial waives prior motions in limine)
- Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2001) (when expert’s general methodology is reliable, weight is for the jury)
- Triplett v. USX Corp., 893 N.E.2d 1107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (differential diagnosis described as recognized scientific technique)
- Lennon v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 123 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (N.D. Ind. 2000) (description of differential diagnosis method)
- Porter v. Irvin’s Interstate Brick & Block Co., Inc., 691 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (exclusive possession and suppression of evidence permits adverse inference)
- Sharp v. LaBrec, Inc., 642 N.E.2d 990 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (standard for when res ipsa loquitur instruction should be given)
- Merriman v. Kraft, 249 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. 1969) (plaintiff need not exclude every other possible cause to invoke res ipsa loquitur)
- Gold v. Ishak, 720 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (res ipsa may be supported by common-sense inferences or expert testimony)