Atlantic Star Foods, LLC v. Burwell

Facts

Mark Burwell visited a Hardee’s restaurant on September 16, 2016 for dinner. He informed the counter attendant, the night manager, and the cook multiple times that he was highly allergic to mushrooms. He was told that was no problem. His employer who was with him ordered burgers with mushrooms on them. Burwell was told his food would be prepared and packaged separately to prevent cross-contamination. 

When Burwell bit into his burger, he realized there were mushrooms on it. He drove himself to the emergency room and was released the next morning. After being released, he developed weakness and breathing problems and was admitted back into the hospital for several days. Burwell subsequently filed suit against Atlantic Star, the owner and operator of the Hardee’s. 

Following a week-long jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of $474,000 on compensatory damages. Atlantic Star appealed, asserting errors related to the jury charge, evidence supporting the punitive damages award, and the failure to grant a mistrial based on a juror expressing discomfort with how the deliberations were progressing. 

Issues & Holdings

The issues in this case were as follows:

1. Did the trial court err in not using the exact language requested by Defendant in its jury charge?
2. Did the trial court err in determining that there was clear and convincing evidence that Defendant’s conduct was so wanton as to support a jury award of punitive damages?
3. Did the trial court err in not declaring a mistrial when a juror indicated discomfort with how deliberations were going less than an hour into deliberations?

The court ruled:

1. No. 
2. No. 
3. No. 

Reasoning

1. First, the court considered Atlantic Star’s argument that its requested jury charges were not honored by the trial court. Atlantic Star had crafted instructions that it claimed were tailored to the evidence regarding causation. While Burwell’s expert believed his second hospitalization was due to the hospital releasing him too early in his recovery from anaphylaxis, Atlantic Star argued that Burwell’s second visit concerned a pre-existing condition he had (hyperaldosteronism).

The court looked to case law in laying out the foundation for its evaluation of Atlantic Star’s argument. If a trial court refuses to give a requested jury instruction, a court will examine the instruction as a whole and whether it “accurately and fully apprised the jury of the law to be applied in its deliberations.” Burdette v. McDowell, 321 Ga. App. 507, 509 (2013). If so, a court’s decision to leave out a requested instruction is not an error. Id. Additionally, a trial court’s refusal to give a jury charge with the exact language requested by a party is not an error if “the charge actually given substantially covers the principles contained in the request.” Nails v. Rubhan, 246 Ga. App. 19, 21 (2000). 

The court ultimately determined, after examining the language of the trial court’s actual instructions and Atlantic Star’s proposed instructions, that the instructions actually given contained the “same legal principles” as those in Atlantic Star’s. See Warnock v. Sandford, 349 Ga. App. 426 (2019).  Therefore, there was no error on the part of the trial court. 

The court easily rejected Atlantic Star’s additional argument related to jury charges that the jury was confused as to the pre-existing condition portion of the charge because of its decision to award Burwell compensation for all of his time in the hospital, instead of just his first stay. The Court determined that the relevant portion of the instruction was “an accurate statement of the law.” It also stated that there was no evidence of jury confusion, as it is likely the jury believed Burwell’s expert who stated that he believed the second hospital stay was directly related to the mushroom ingestion, as opposed to a pre-existing condition.

2. Next, the Court considered Atlantic Star’s argument that it should have been granted a directed verdict on the issue of punitive damages. According to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1, punitive damages are appropriate when a defendant’s actions showed either wantonness or an entire lack of care to raise a presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences. A jury’s verdict reviewing an award of punitive damages is to be considered by the appellate court under the clear and convincing standard. Taylor v. Devereux Foundation, Inc., 361 Ga. 44 (2023).

The Court focused on a few specific facts when considering the Defendant’s behavior: the fact that Burwell informed the staff of his allergy at least four times, the fact that the night manager had not been trained on the corporate policy regarding allergies, and the fact that Burwell had been assured that he would not be served mushrooms. These facts, the Court determined, were sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that Atlantic Star’s conduct rose to the wanton/lack of care standard for punitive damages.

3. Finally, the Court looked at Atlantic Star’s argument that a mistrial should have been declared. The Court noted that “unless it is apparent that a mistrial is essential to preservation of the right of fair trial, the discretion of the trial judge will not be interfered with.” Clack v. Hasnat, 354 Ga. App. 502, 507 (2020). The Court reasoned that because the jury had only been deliberating for less than an hour when the juror expressed discomfort, the judge took the time to question counsel as to a remedy, and the fact that after the court gave an Allen charge, deliberations went smoothly, there was no error in not declaring a mistrial.

Conclusion

This case provides a helpful analytical framework for jury instructions, as well as an exploration into the requirements for punitive damages. 

There are also a few practical takeaways from this opinion. First, make sure corporate policies are produced in discovery. The fact that there was a corporate policy in place regarding allergies that the night manager was not trained on greatly strengthened Burwell’s case. Next, experts are very important. Burwell’s expert’s opinion was enough to persuade the jury to award Burwell for his whole hospital stay, even though the defense argued a causation issue. Finally, a thorough fact investigation is paramount when punitive damages are sought, as knowing all the pertinent facts can make or break a claim that is focused solely on the nature of the defendant’s conduct.

To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you’re an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, learn more here.

Citation:Atlantic Star Foods, LLC v. Burwell, 2023 WL 3913955 (Ga. Ct. App. June 9, 2023)