Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-12-021 MMJ.
Submitted: September 21, 2004.
Decided: December 7, 2004.
Upon Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial Denied
ORDER
1. Pauline Moore and David Moore ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint on December 4, 2001, claiming that Pauline Moore ("Plaintiff") suffered food poisoning, as a result of eating salmon teriyaki. The alleged food poisoning occurred on August 7, 2000, at Romano's Macaroni Grill, on Concord Pike in Wilmington, Delaware. A trial in this matter was held on August 16, 2004. After deliberating the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. On August 27, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a New Trial pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59.
2. Plaintiffs argue that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence because Defendant did not offer a medical expert to dispute causation. Plaintiff offered the deposition testimony of Dr. Bernard Zoranski, which Plaintiffs feel conclusively establishes causation. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant offered no evidence to contradict Dr. Zoranski's testimony or to suggest another cause for Plaintiff's illness.
3. Defendant asserts that a jury is not obligated to accept Plaintiffs' case at face value. The jury is entitled to weigh and assess evidence and the credibility of witnesses even when evidence is not formally rebutted. Defendant is not required to offer evidence to rebut the testimony of Dr. Zoranski and dispute causation. It is Plaintiffs' responsibility to establish a causal link between Plaintiff's illness and Defendant's conduct.
Legros v. Jewell, 2001 WL 34083884 (Del.Super.).
4. Defendant contends that while there is no dispute that Plaintiff suffered from acute gastroenteritis, there is a dispute as to whether Defendant was responsible. It was Plaintiff's burden to establish the Plaintiff's injuries were a result of eating a meal at Defendant's restaurant. Plaintiff did not meet her burden.
5. Defendant asserts that the jury never found that the food Plaintiff ate at Romano's Macaroni Grill was "tainted." In fact, in filling out the Verdict Form, the jury concluded: (1) Defendant was not negligent and Defendant's negligence did not cause the injury to Plaintiff; and (2) Defendant did not breach its implied warranty of merchantability.
6. A jury verdict will be set aside when, in the judgment of the trial judge, the verdict "is at least against the great weight of the evidence. In other words, barring exceptional circumstances, a trial judge should not set aside a jury verdict on such grounds unless, on a review of all the evidence, the evidence preponderates so heavily against the jury verdict that a reasonable jury could not have reached the result." The Court should be reluctant to draw a conclusion different from the jury on a disputed question of fact when the subject matter is within the normal comprehension of a jury and the evidence in the case is not particularly complex.
Storey v. Camper, 401 A.2d 458, 465 (Del. 1979).
See id. at 466-67.
7. It was entirely within the discretion of the jury in this case to decide that the injuries claimed by Plaintiff were not caused by eating at Romano's Macaroni Grill. Dr. Zoranski's testimony was inconsistent regarding the cause of food poisoning. He first testified in his report in August of 2002 that the food Plaintiff ate was critical to his determination of whether or not she suffered food poisoning. In contrast, in his trial deposition Dr. Zoranski stated that the food Plaintiff ate was irrelevant and that the preparer of the food was ultimately responsible for her illness. Mr. Bassell, the manager at Romano's Macaroni Grill, testified as to the training and usual practices used in food preparation at the restaurant. Mr. Bassell also testified that he had no other complaints of food poisoning or sickness on or around August 7, 2000. A reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff's illness did not result from her meal at Romano's Macaroni Grill.
8. The Court finds that the jury's verdict was consistent with the weight of the evidence. Additionally, the case was not especially complicated and was within the normal comprehension of a jury. The jury determined the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented and reasonably concluded that Plaintiff's injuries were not the result of her meal at Romano's Macaroni Grill.
THEREFORE, Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial is hereby DENIED.