John Foster, Jr. v. Afc Enterprises, Inc., Et Ux.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 2, 2005
• Docket: CA-0004-1014
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

04-1014

JOHN FOSTER, JR.

VERSUS

AFC ENTERPRISES, INC., ET UX.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 69,644 HONORABLE JOHN C. FORD, DISTRICT JUDGE

BILLY HOWARD EZELL JUDGE

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Billy Howard Ezell, J. David Painter, Judges.

Amy, J., dissents and assigns written reasons. Saunders, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Judge Amy.

AFFIRMED.

Elvin C. Fontenot, Jr. 110 East Texas Street Leesville, LA 71446 (337) 239-2684 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: John Foster, Jr.

Larry A. Stewart Andrew P. Texada Stafford, Stewart & Potter Post Office Box 1711 Alexandria, LA 71309 (318) 487-4910 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company AFC Enterprises, Inc. EZELL, JUDGE.

A restaurant patron brought suit, alleging that he suffered from food poisoning

after consuming a chicken meal from the Defendant restaurant. Following a bench

trial, the trial court found in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendants now appeal. For

the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

The record of the proceedings below indicates that on June 3, 2002, the

Plaintiff John Foster, Jr., awoke and ate his standard breakfast of grits, bacon and

eggs before leaving for his job in the maintenance department of the Vernon Parish

School Board. He testified that, between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m., he and a co-worker

went to Church’s Fried Chicken for lunch, where he ordered three pieces of chicken,

french fries, and a cold drink. Mr. Foster further testified that he returned to work to

eat his meal, finished his workday, and returned home in the afternoon. According

to Mr. Foster, he did not eat anything else after lunch because he began vomiting and

having stomach pains at approximately 7:00 p.m. that evening. His stomach pains

and vomiting persisted until his wife took him to a hospital emergency room during

the early morning hours of June 4.

Mr. Foster was admitted into the emergency room at Byrd Regional Hospital

complaining of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. Mr. Foster testified that he

was first seen by Dr. Victor Hernandez in the emergency room, who, upon hearing

of Mr. Foster’s lunch told him, “you have been food poisoned . . . .” While there is

no testimony from Dr. Hernandez, emergency room records indicate that Dr.

Hernandez was the initial treating physician. Chest and stomach x-rays were normal.

Dr. Hernandez wanted to rule out cholecystitis and biliary colic, gallbladder

problems, so he ordered a hepoatobilliary scan. While in the emergency room, Mr. Foster vomited a green liquid with food particles. Despite treatment in the emergency

room, doctors were unable to control Mr. Foster’s vomiting and he was admitted to

the hospital.

According to the record, Mr. Foster’s doctor, Dr. Hanna Lubbos, also met with

him during the morning of June 4. Dr. Lubbos had been treating Mr. Foster for

diabetes mellitus type 2 since 1999, which had been controlled fairly recently. In his

assessment Dr. Lubbos diagnosed Mr. Foster with “[g]astroenteritis that is most likely

secondary to food poisoning with vomiting that is responding to conventional

therapy.” At his deposition, Dr. Lubbos stated that neither a sample of Mr. Foster’s

stool nor his vomitus was taken and inspected during his hospital stay.

Dr. Guru Ghanta also examined Mr. Foster on a referral from Dr. Lubbos. Dr.

Ghanta noted that Mr. Foster had “[n]o history of indigestion, heartburn or any

alteration of bowel habits.” His impression was “[p]ossible acute gastritis; rule out

acute peptic ulcer disease.” His report does not mention food poisoning.

Mr. Foster testified that later in the morning of June 4, he felt “a little better –

a whole lot better than I was when I first went there . . . .” Dr. Lubbos discharged him

with a final diagnosis of gastroenteritis with food poisoning. Mr. Foster testified that

after returning home he continued to have stomach pains and feel nauseated and

could not return to work for approximately three or four days.

Mr. Foster filed suit alleging that he “was advised that he was diagnosed with

food poisoning” and “that the sole cause of his condition was the faulty preparation

of the food prepared by the employees of defendant.” Following a bench trial, the

trial court found in favor of Mr. Foster, awarding him $2,500.00 in general damages

and $1,143.65 in special damages. The trial court then granted Mr. Foster’s motion

2 for new trial, which alleged that the court had failed to award medical payments made

by his insurer as required by the collateral source rule. The court changed the damage

awards to $2,500.00 for general damages and $6,353.60 for special damages, which

represented the total amount of medical charges Mr. Foster incurred in relation to the

incident.

The Defendants took a suspensive appeal from this decision. They alleged that

the trial court erred in finding Mr. Foster suffered from food poisoning sold by

Church’s.

DISCUSSION

To meet his or her burden of proof in a food poisoning case, the plaintiff must

prove that the deleterious condition existed in the product when it was purchased.

Hairston v. Burger King Corp., 33,587 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/21/00), 764 So.2d 176. The

plaintiff must further prove the existence of a causal relationship between the illness

or injury and the consumption of the food. Id. In fulfilling this burden of proof, “it

is not necessary for the consumer to negate every conceivable cause but he must show

that it is more likely than not that the food’s condition caused the injury of which he

complains.” Griffin v. Schwegmann Brothers Giant Supermarkets, Inc., 542 So.2d

710, 712 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1989).

“The courts have never compelled a plaintiff to produce an actual analysis of the food consumed in order to establish its unwholesome condition. Rather, the courts have been willing to infer the deleterious nature of the food consumed from the circumstances surrounding the illness. In all of the cases in which there has been successful recovery, the plaintiff has shown that the food was consumed by him, and that no other food which might reasonably be assumed to have caused the illness had been consumed within a number of hours before or after the consumption of the suspect product. The plaintiff has also had medical opinion to the effect that it was probable that his illness was caused by the consumption of the particular product involved. In addition, the successful plaintiffs in the above cases have been able to show some

3 other independent circumstance, which tends to prove his case. . . .”

Lee v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 396 So.2d 374, 375 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1981)(quoting

McCauley v. Manda Bros. Provisions Co., 202 So.2d 492, 495 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ

granted, 251 La. 402, 204 So.2d 578 (1967), affirmed, 252 La. 528, 211 So.2d 637

(1968)). Furthermore, Mr. Foster does not have to establish that other people became

ill from eating the chicken. McAvin v. Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Louisiana, 85 So.2d

63 (La.Orls.App. 1956).

Mr. Foster explained that the only other food he ate that day was his usual

breakfast items. It was after he consumed the chicken that he fell violently ill. While

we recognize that the hepoatobilliary scan indicated evidence of chronic cholecystitis,

his own treating physician, Dr. Lubbos, testified that Mr. Foster had never had any

stomach problems before. Both Mr. Foster and his wife testified that he had never

had stomach problems before. Dr. Lubbos explained that his diagnosis of food

poisoning was based on the symptoms of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting and

the history provided by Mr. Foster.

In the instant case, the trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, stating in its

written reasons for judgment that “[c]onsidering the testimony of the parties and Dr.

Lubbos’ diagnosis at the time he first examined plaintiff, the Court finds that it is

more probable than not that plaintiff’s condition was the result of food poisoning.”

In considering a case in which the plaintiff alleges that the consumption of deleterious

food caused illness, a court of appeal may not upset a trial court’s findings of fact

absent manifest error. Hairston, 764 So.2d 176.

Based on the entirety of the evidence, we cannot say that the trial court was

clearly wrong in its decision that Mr. Foster met his burden of proving that the

4 chicken he received at the Defendant’s place of business was served to him in a

deleterious condition and that the consumption of that chicken actually caused his

injuries. While Mr. Foster had “evidence” of chronic cholecystitis, he had never

suffered any problems as a result of the possible condition. His own treating

physician released him from the hospital with a diagnosis of food poisoning as the

most probable cause of his sudden stomach illness. There was also an absence of

evidence that Mr. Foster had ever suffered any stomach problems either before or

after this incident. Therefore, we find that the trial court could conclude that more

probably than not that Mr. Foster’s condition was caused by chicken from Church’s

contaminated with food poisoning that he had eaten before he got sick. In response

all Church’s offered was an affidavit that no one else made a claim that they had

gotten sick that day from the chicken. It could have been that no one reported their

illness or that Mr. Foster was the only person served from a particular batch of

chicken that somehow got contaminated. Furthermore, there was no evidence or

testimony that this was not food poisoning or unlikely that it was food poisoning. We

find no manifest error in the trial court’s ruling.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and

AFC Enterprises, Inc.

5 NUMBER 04-1014

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

AFC ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

AMY, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent, as I find error in the trial court’s determination that the

plaintiff fulfilled his burden of proof. In my opinion, a reversal is required. My

review indicates that the plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence

that the food served by the defendant was in a deleterious condition, nor that the

plaintiff’s illness was caused by his consumption of the defendant’s product.

The trial court’s reasons reveal that it considered Dr. Lubbos’ initial diagnosis

that the plaintiff’s illness was “[g]astroenteritis that is most likely secondary to food

poisoning” in determining that the plaintiff met his burden of proof. However, Dr.

Lubbos testified in his deposition that the plaintiff’s illness could have been caused

by a flare-up of chronic cholecystitis, food poisoning, a reaction to some other viral

or bacterial agent, or some other unknown condition.

To ascertain the exact cause of the sickness, Dr. Lubbos testified that testing

a stool sample would be the proper method for finding whether bacteria were present

in a patient. When explaining why a stool sample was not collected from Mr. Foster,

the doctor stated:

He was not really having any diarrhea, and sometimes the . . . really, the treatment, even if it is food poisoning, it’s like 24 hours of IV fluids. The cost of doing all these tests, it takes two or three days to get it back, and the patient will be out of the hospital, and so we don’t do exact testing, what caused the diarrhea, it will go away, or the food poisoning, because it will go away in up to 24 hours. Dr. Lubbos’ testimony demonstrates that, because he did not perform any

bacterial or viral tests on the plaintiff, there was no way to determine exactly what

caused the plaintiff’s sickness. He said that, in reaching his initial diagnosis, he relied

on the history provided by the plaintiff. Dr. Lubbos stated, “I mean, it’s the story that

the patient gives you, and then just you have to go by what he says[.]”

In addition to the absence of viral and bacterial test results, there are a number

of additional factors in the instant matter that suggest that the plaintiff did not prove

that the food was in a deleterious condition when it was served. For instance, the

defendants submitted evidence that no other claims were made from June 1, 2002 to

June 10, 2002 regarding the Church’s Fried Chicken restaurant that the plaintiff

visited. Further, the plaintiff testified that the chicken he ate tasted “fine” to him

when he ate it.

Despite the plaintiff’s testimony that the only other thing he ate on June 3,

2002 was his usual breakfast, his physician testified that if Mr. Foster had suffered

from food poisoning, he could have come into contact with the bacteria or virus at

any time within twenty-four hours prior to visiting the hospital “and probably longer

than that time.” Also, the record is devoid of evidence which would suggest what

Mr. Foster consumed in the period prior to his breakfast on the morning of his illness.

Based on the entirety of the evidence, I find manifest error in the trial court’s

determination that the plaintiff proved that it is more likely than not that the food he

received at the defendant’s place of business was served to him in a deleterious

condition and that the consumption of that food actually caused his injuries. As I find

a reversal appropriate, I respectfully dissent.