304 Ga. 232
Ga.2018Background
- Joshua and Taylor Patterson ate food at a rehearsal dinner catered by Big Kev’s and later became ill; Mr. Patterson tested positive for Salmonella.
- Multiple other guests who consumed Big Kev’s food reported similar illnesses; some who did not attend the subsequent wedding reception also fell ill.
- Big Kev’s moved for summary judgment arguing the Pattersons could not prove proximate cause, pointing to other possible sources (other foods, leftovers, later meals, delay in symptom onset, and many diners who did not get sick).
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the Pattersons failed to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis for their illnesses.
- The Court of Appeals (5–4) affirmed, applying a standard that circumstantial evidence in food-poisoning cases must exclude all other reasonable hypotheses.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the correct summary-judgment standard for causation in food-poisoning cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper summary-judgment standard for proximate cause in food-poisoning cases | Pattersons: circumstantial evidence (Salmonella test, multiple similarly ill guests, timing) creates genuine issue for jury | Big Kev’s: plaintiffs must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis; absent that, summary judgment is proper | Reversed: no special, heightened causation rule; circumstantial evidence need only make other theories less probable so as to create a jury question |
| Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to defeat summary judgment | Pattersons: lab result for Mr. Patterson, another guest positive, many guests sick, some who did not eat other foods | Big Kev’s: offered contrary circumstantial facts (others not ill, other foods consumed, timing inconsistent) | Reversed: Pattersons’ circumstantial evidence, when credited, contradicts defendant’s assertions and raises triable issue |
| Role of expert testimony on incubation/causation at summary stage | Pattersons: expert not necessary here; ordinary juror could assess circumstantial proof | Big Kev’s: suggested experts would be needed to show inconsistent incubation periods | Held: lack of expert testimony does not automatically defeat causation on summary judgment; defendant bore burden to show absence of evidence |
| Whether precedent creates a unique heavier burden in food-poisoning cases | Pattersons: no special ‘unique species’ rule should apply at summary judgment | Big Kev’s/Ct. of Appeals: prior cases require exclusion of all other reasonable hypotheses | Held: prior cases were conflated; no special heightened rule—apply ordinary summary-judgment and circumstantial-evidence principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (summary judgment burden on moving defendant)
- Southern R. Co. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 258 Ga. 232 (circumstantial evidence may be sufficient unless other theories are more probable)
- McBee v. Aspire at West Midtown Apts., 302 Ga. 662 (de novo review; construe evidence for nonmovant)
- Haley v. Regions Bank, 277 Ga. 85 (rule on inferred facts from circumstantial evidence)
- Mann v. D. L. Lee & Sons, Inc., 245 Ga. App. 224 (plaintiffs failed to carry causation burden at summary judgment)
- Stevenson v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc., 211 Ga. App. 572 (batch-testing and other direct evidence negating unwholesomeness)
- Castleberry’s Food Co. v. Smith, 205 Ga. App. 859 (food-poisoning case discussing expert evidence)
- Cassano v. Pilgreen’s, Inc., 117 Ga. App. 260 (insufficient causation proof without more than plaintiff’s testimony)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (when expert testimony is needed for medical causation)