Khoury v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 286
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Khourys sued ConAgra for Mrs. Khoury’s bronchiolitis obliterans and Mr. Khoury’s loss of consortium, allegedly from butter flavoring vapors in ConAgra popcorn.
- Trial court restricted rebuttal evidence and later removed juror Piedimonte, substituting an alternate.
- Voir dire preceded trial; juror qualifications and potential biases were explored; Case.net was used to check litigation history.
- During trial, Khourys offered Dr. Remy for rebuttal causation and other rebuttal materials; many rebuttal items were limited or excluded.
- ConAgra presented substantial causation defenses and evidence, including its experts and testimony about popcorn purchases; Khourys presented their own witnesses.
- Jury returned a verdict for ConAgra after a three-week trial; final judgment denied Khourys’ post-trial motions and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rebuttal evidence was improperly restricted | Khourys: Dr. Remy rebuttal causation should be admitted | ConAgra: Remy testimony is cumulative and improper rebuttal | No abuse of discretion; evidence properly limited |
| Whether removing Juror Piedimonte was an abuse of discretion | Khourys: removal prejudiced them; untimely objection | ConAgra: removal was prudent to preserve impartiality | No abuse of discretion; replacement upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Gassen v. Woy, 785 S.W.2d 601 (Mo.App. W.D.1990) (rebuttal evidence must be responsive and not cumulative)
- Edley v. O’Brien, 918 S.W.2d 898 (Mo.App. S.D.1996) (rebuttal evidence that is not responsive is not automatically admissible)
- Aliff v. Cody, 26 S.W.3d 309 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (abuse of discretion in excluding rebuttal evidence is not reversible absent prejudice)
- Robinson, 26 S.W.3d 414 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (trial court discretion in juror disqualification; replacement permissible)
- Hudson v. Behring, 261 S.W.3d 621 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (alternate juror as remedy for possible bias)
- McBurney v. Cameron, 248 S.W.3d 36 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (encourages challenges before case submission; reasonable efforts to investigate jurors)
- Johnson v. McCullough, 306 S.W.3d 551 (Mo. banc 2010) (timeliness of juror nondisclosure challenge; use Case.net; distinguish from later Rule 69.025)
- Yaeger v. Olympic Marine Co., 983 S.W.2d 173 (Mo.App. E.D.1998) (appellate deference to trial court on juror issues)
- Rodgers v. Jackson Cnty. Orthopedics, Inc., 904 S.W.2d 385 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (peremptory challenges rely on statutory right; qualified panel context)