Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01088/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01088-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1088

___________

Savana Kaylin Thacker, by her next *

friend Kristi Thacker; Shelby L. *

Thacker and Kristi Thacker, parents of *

Savana Kaylin Thacker, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellants, * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Kroger Company; *

ConAgra, Inc., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 13, 2005 

Filed: December 2, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, LAY and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 ruled that there was insufficient evidence to make it

"reasonable and probable" that ground beef produced by ConAgra, Inc., and sold by

Appellate Case: 05-1088 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2005 Entry ID: 1981292
-2-

the Kroger Company, caused Savana Kaylin Thacker's illness. Having jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

I.

ConAgra processes and packages ground beef for sale to grocery stores

nationwide. One product is "chubs," ground beef shipped to grocery stores

prepackaged. Another product is "trim," small pieces of beef often ground into

hamburger by a store itself. Kroger's store in Eldon, Missouri, sells both products.

The trim it grinds into hamburger and packages in foam with clear plastic wrap. 

On June 29, 2002, the United States Department of Agriculture notified

ConAgra that ground beef it produced on May 31 contained E. coli bacteria.

ConAgra issued a recall the next day for 354,000 pounds of ground beef chubs

produced May 31. No trim was recalled then. This initial recall did not affect

Kroger's store in Eldon because it did not receive any chubs produced on May 31.

On July 19, ConAgra expanded its recall to include all beef – both chubs and

trim – produced from April 12 through June 29. That same day, ConAgra notified

Kroger that two products were subject to the recall: 1) five-pound Kroger FlavorSeal

Tubes of Ground Chuck with sell-by dates of May 20 through June 8; and 2) tenpound Keeper Casings with sell-by dates of June 22 through July 14. Kroger posted

notices of this recall in its stores. Kroger issued a press release requesting Missouri

consumers to return: 1) "ground beef, ground chuck and ground round purchased in

one-, three- and five-pound tubes with sell-by dates of May 9, 2002 through July 16,

2002"; and 2) products with sell-by dates of April 18 through June 11, 2002, and June

22 through July 14, 2002.

Sometime in early July, Kristi Thacker purchased ground beef for her family

from Kroger's store. All four members of the family ate it during the first two weeks

Appellate Case: 05-1088 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2005 Entry ID: 1981292
-3-

of August. On August 12 and 13, Savana – the youngest member of the family –

complained of stomach cramps, and, by August 17, she was vomiting. On August 19,

Savana was taken to see her primary physician and then rushed to a hospital where

she was diagnosed with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), a disease commonly

associated with E. coli. Savana was the only family member that became sick. The

Thackers' beef was never tested to confirm the presence of E. coli.

II.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ConAgra and Kroger,

ruling that the Thackers failed to establish that Savana's injuries were caused by the

beef produced by ConAgra and sold by Kroger. A grant of summary judgment is

reviewed de novo, using the same standard as applied by the district court.

Schoolhouse, Inc. v. Anderson, 275 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment

is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant,

shows no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

Under Missouri law, the existence of a product defect may be inferred from

circumstantial evidence. See Boss v. Gen. Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 842, 850 (8th Cir.

1998); Weatherford v. H.K. Porter, Inc., 560 S.W.2d 31, 34 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977); see

also Duke v. Gulf & W. Mfg. Co., 660 S.W.2d 404, 409 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983);

Williams v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 285 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Mo. Ct. App. 1955).

However, the finding of a defect cannot rely on mere conjecture, speculation or

guesswork. See Daniel v. Ind. Mills & Mfg., Inc., 103 S.W.3d 302, 310 (Mo. Ct. App.

2003), citing Crump v. MacNaught P.T.Y. Ltd., 743 S.W.2d 532, 534 (Mo. Ct. App.

1987); see also Braun v. Roux Distrib. Co., 312 S.W.2d 758, 766 (Mo. 1958).

Instead, it must be based upon probative facts. See Lifritz v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,

472 S.W.2d 28, 32 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971). "These probative facts . . . while not

requiring the quality of absolute certainty, must point to the desired conclusion with

Appellate Case: 05-1088 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/02/2005 Entry ID: 1981292
-4-

such a degree of certainty as to make that conclusion reasonable and probable." Id.

Where there are multiple possible causes, the plaintiff must "exclude other causes by

presenting substantial evidence that a particular cause for which defendant is liable

is responsible for plaintiff's injuries." Bone v. Ames Taping Tool Sys., Inc., 179 F.3d

1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 1999), quoting Kircher v. Purina Mills, Inc., 775 S.W.2d 115,

117 (Mo.banc 1989). 

The Thackers rely mostly on the fact that the beef they ate was subject to the

ConAgra/Kroger recall. Additionally, the Thackers interpret Ms. Thacker's testimony

to say she bought clear-wrapped ground beef as well as the five-pound chubs. Even

assuming Ms. Thacker did purchase clear-wrapped beef, it is undisputed that fresh

ground beef has a maximum 18-day shelf life from the date of production. Any meat

produced on May 31 – the only production day that the USDA detected E. coli in

meat that was actually distributed – would have been removed from the shelves by

June 18, long before Ms. Thacker purchased the beef consumed. Thus, viewed most

favorably to the Thackers, the clear-wrapped beef, while subject to the recall, was not

part of the contaminated meat discovered by the USDA on May 31. This fact does

not establish the causation necessary to avoid summary judgment.

The district court correctly notes that Missouri courts have yet to address

whether the mere existence of a recall establishes causation in products liability cases.

 But cf. Yun v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 00-0487, 2002 WL 732276 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22,

2002), aff'd, 65 Fed. Appx. 644 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that plaintiff did not prove

recalled sutures were used in his surgery); Anderson v. Whittaker Corp., 894 F.2d 804

(6th Cir. 1990) (finding recalled boat's air vents defective based on additional

evidence) . In this case, there is no evidence that the additional recalls were the result

of positive E. coli tests. Instead, it appears that the recalls were mostly cautionary.

The Thackers emphasize Dr. Groshong's testimony as to the causation of

Savana's HUS. But his conclusion was based on the Thackers' representation that

Appellate Case: 05-1088 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/02/2005 Entry ID: 1981292
-5-

"they knew that they had ingested some food that was known to have been

contaminated with E. coli." This conclusion was not based upon probative fact but

instead on speculation by the Thackers. Dr. Groshong testified that he did "not know

what the source is," and that "I, obviously, have no source."

The Thackers assert that Dr. Groshong's answer to a hypothetical establishes

the required probability separate from the rest of his testimony. First, the hypothetical

appears to be based on the assumption that all the recalled beef was found

contaminated. Most importantly, it did not include the fact that earlier Savana ate

part of a hamburger at a county fair. When questioned whether he could identify the

source of the HUS to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Dr. Groshong replied,

"But, you know, if you tell me that, well, she had hamburger from somebody else the

day before, or something like that, no. I mean, I can't, of course." Dr. Groshong's

conclusions were not based on all the probative facts and, thus, are speculative at

best. See Perkins v. Kroger Co., 592 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)

(hypothetical question to doctor must be based upon facts in evidence). 

 The Thackers argue that Dr. Groshong's expert opinion is "exactly like" that

given in Perkins where a Missouri court found causation and submissibility. In

Perkins, though, the doctor's testimony was based on the fact that a foreign substance

was actually discovered in the sausage and confirmed in lab tests, and that the

children became sick while consuming it. Thus, Perkins is not only distinguishable

from the present case, it also demonstrates the standard to prove causation. 

Finally, to the extent there is more than one possible cause of Savana's HUS,

the Thackers fail to show by substantial evidence the probable cause. Their only

evidence of causation is the existence of the recalls and Dr. Groshong's testimony.

In sum, causation was not proved and the case is not submissible under Missouri law.

Therefore, this court affirms. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1088 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/02/2005 Entry ID: 1981292