James v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
2012 OK 21
| Okla. | 2012Background
- Tyson contracted with independent growers to raise Tyson-owned chickens using Tyson-provided feed; growers never own birds, feed, or related materials.
- Growers alleged negligence, fraud, and Consumer Protection Act violations, claiming targeted delivery of poor-quality birds and feed.
- Trial court refused severance; cases were grouped for trial; first trial in March–April 2010 resulted in a verdict for growers.
- Tyson moved for a new trial; a substitute judge was later appointed; new trial motion was ultimately denied.
- Court held juror questionnaires contained incomplete/misleading answers and counsel were barred from probing; this supported a new trial.
- Court addressed whether contract growers qualify as “aggrieved consumers” under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act and held they do not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror questionnaire misconduct warranted a new trial | Domimon Bank supports new trial for incomplete answers | Growers argue prior inquiry suffices; no new trial needed | New trial warranted due to juror questionnaire misconduct |
| Whether contract growers are “aggrieved consumers” under the CPA | Growers are consumers under Act's scope | Growers purchase nothing; not consumers per Lumber 2 | Growers not aggrieved consumers; CPA not applicable; remand for new trial on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee v. Masterson, 928 P.2d 291 (Okla. 1996) (juror qualification inquiry supports new trial when misled during voir dire)
- Lumber 2, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 261 P.3d 1143 (Okla. 2011) (retailer not a consumer; limits CPA scope to “consumers”)
- Patterson v. Beall, 19 P.3d 839 (Okla. 2000) (private CPA action limited to aggrieved consumers)
- Head v. McCracken, 102 P.3d 670 (Okla. 2004) (juror-related and other grounds for new trials examined)