Santiago v. Rich Products Corporation
91 N.E.3d 1166
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In March 2006, first-grader Kelvin Santiago choked on Rich Products’ meatballs served in a Lowell public school cafeteria, suffered catastrophic brain injury, and pieces of meatball removed from his airway were discarded by school staff; remaining cafeteria meatballs were ground into sauce.
- Plaintiffs (Kelvin and his parents) sued the city and Rich Products alleging negligence and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; after summary judgment for the city, a jury trial on Rich Products’ liability resulted in a verdict for Rich Products (finding negligence not a substantial factor and no breach of warranty).
- Plaintiffs moved for spoliation sanctions against Rich Products for missing 2004 laboratory notebooks/production records and 2004 testing results relevant to the meatball formula and testing; trial judge declined to give an adverse-inference instruction but permitted plaintiffs to argue the absence of evidence to the jury.
- Plaintiffs’ theory was that Profam 974 (a soy protein isolate used as a binder) made the meatballs unreasonably dangerous in texture and a choking hazard; plaintiffs presented experts who recreated the meatball from Rich Products’ disclosed formula and opined about texture and size risks.
- The trial judge denied the spoliation instruction because plaintiffs failed to show when the documents were lost and thus could not prove Rich Products destroyed evidence after knowing or reasonably anticipating litigation; the motion judge granted summary judgment for the city because no rational jury could find the city negligent based on the undisputed emergency response and lack of notice of danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation instruction for missing company records | Missing 2004 lab notebooks and testing results prejudiced proof of formula changes and testing, justifying an adverse-inference instruction | Documents were lost before any notice of potential suit (per retention policy and company reorganization); plaintiffs failed to prove timing or culpability | No abuse of discretion denying instruction: plaintiffs failed to show documents were lost/destroyed when defendant knew or should have known of potential litigation; allowance to argue absence of evidence was sufficient remedy |
| Prejudice from missing records | Lost documents prevented confirmation of formula and obviated need for plaintiffs’ own testing | Plaintiffs could test exemplars and had access to USDA/other records; most testing related to quality not choking hazards | Any prejudice was speculative; plaintiffs had other means to investigate and the judge’s lesser remedy sufficed |
| City negligence for serving alleged dangerous food | City should be liable for serving unreasonably dangerous USDA-approved product and for alleged inadequate supervision/time pressure in cafeteria | Meatball was USDA-approved and city bought via National School Lunch Program; plaintiffs offered no proof city knew or should have known of danger; no causal showing of supervision failures | Summary judgment affirmed: no rational view of evidence supports inference city knew of product danger or that supervision caused injury; emergency response not negligent |
| Liability for emergency response (back blows/Heimlich) | School response may have been improperly performed and could have worsened injury | Plaintiffs offered no expert causation evidence showing the response proximately caused injury; medical causation requires expert proof | Summary judgment proper: absent expert testimony, causation beyond ordinary knowledge cannot be inferred |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790 (spoliation standard; party seeking sanctions must show the spoliator knew or should have known of potential relevance)
- Keene v. Brigham & Women's Hosp., Inc., 439 Mass. 223 (party culpably destroying evidence should be held accountable; sanctions scope)
- Kippenhan v. Chaulk Servs., Inc., 428 Mass. 124 (spoliation doctrine does not cover fault-free loss of evidence)
- Vigorito v. Ciulla Builders, Inc., 57 Mass. App. Ct. 446 (denial of spoliation instruction proper where circumstances/timing of loss unexplained)
- Westover v. Leiserv, Inc., 64 Mass. App. Ct. 109 (judge may craft remedies for spoliation; exemplars can cure prejudice)
- Gath v. M/A-COM, Inc., 440 Mass. 482 (range of remedies for spoliation; presentation of surrounding circumstances permitted)
- Fletcher v. Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co., 437 Mass. 544 (spoliation remedies should address precise unfairness)
- Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co., 462 Mass. 346 (standard for reviewing summary judgment de novo)
- Petrell v. Shaw, 453 Mass. 377 (negligence elements and summary judgment when plaintiff cannot prove essential element)
- Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706 (summary judgment appropriate when no rational view permits finding of negligence)
- Harlow v. Chin, 405 Mass. 697 (medical causation generally requires expert testimony)
- Glidden v. Maglio, 430 Mass. 694 (causal link required between breach and injury for summary judgment analysis)