BMLA, Inc. D/B/A Murphy's Deli v. Keziah Jordan

Opinion issued November 18, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00568-CV
———————————
BMLA, INC. D/B/A MURPHY’S DELI, Appellant
V.
KEZIAH JORDAN, Appellee
On Appeal from the 165th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2015-17893
OPINION
Plaintiff Keziah Jordan sustained serious injuries when she collapsed onto a
hard countertop in a doctor’s office after experiencing severe gastric distress. Jordan
sued Defendant BMLA, Inc. doing business as Murphy’s Deli (“Murphy’s Deli”) on
the theory that a kolache—sold by Murphy’s Deli on medical center grounds and
consumed by Jordan less than an hour before she became ill—caused her injury. A
jury found that Murphy’s Deli breached the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose and awarded Jordan a total of $400,000 in damages. The trial
court entered judgment on the jury verdict.
On appeal, Murphy’s Deli contends that (1) Jordan did not present legally or
factually sufficient expert medical testimony that her illness was caused by
consuming the kolache purchased from Murphy’s Deli; and (2) Jordan did not
present evidence that she had notified Murphy’s Deli that a breach of warranty had
occurred, as required to recover for breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose. We agree with Murphy’s Deli that the evidence was legally
insufficient to sustain the verdict, and we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Background
On Monday, February 16, 2015, Keziah Jordan had a morning appointment
scheduled with her cardiologist in the Texas Medical Center in Houston. Because of
the tests that were to be performed, her cardiologist required her to fast from
midnight until the time of her appointment. Prior to fasting, Jordan and her husband
ate dinner on Saturday night and breakfast on Sunday morning. Neither of them
became sick after eating these meals. On Sunday night, Jordan prepared baked ziti
for dinner. Jordan, her husband, and her son all ate the same meal for dinner, and
2
none of them became sick that evening. The baked ziti was the last meal Jordan had
before her cardiologist appointment on Monday morning.
Jordan completed her tests and lab work around 9:00 or 9:30 a.m., but her
cardiologist was not yet present. Her doctor’s receptionist told her that it was alright
if she got something to eat, so Jordan went to Murphy’s Deli located on the first floor
of the building. Jordan ordered a sausage and cheese kolache and a kiwi strawberry
Snapple to drink. The kolache was in a glass display case. Jordan took the kolache
and the Snapple back upstairs to her doctor’s office to eat in the waiting room. Jordan
testified that the kolache “tasted a little off,” but she ate all of it.
Less than an hour later, Jordan had “really bad stomach cramps” and started
to feel nauseated. She had at least three or four episodes of diarrhea, and her stomach
“was continually hurting.” She checked with the receptionist several times to see if
her cardiologist had arrived. The last time she checked with the receptionist, Jordan
fainted. As she fell, her face hit the receptionist’s desk, which was a granite or stone
countertop. Jordan was taken to the emergency room. Jordan had several broken
teeth and a broken jaw, requiring multiple dental procedures and surgeries to address
her injuries. At the time of trial, she still experienced headaches and neck pain related
to her injuries.
Dr. Syed Hasan, an internal medicine physician, testified as Jordan’s
causation witness. He examined Jordan after she was taken to the emergency room.
3
According to Dr. Hasan, Jordan presented with complaints including diarrhea,
fainting, and an injured lip and teeth. Dr. Hasan estimated that the cause of Jordan’s
diarrhea—which caused Jordan to become dehydrated, triggering the fainting
episode—was viral gastroenteritis.
Dr. Hasan did not conduct any testing to determine that Jordan had
gastroenteritis but instead based his diagnosis on Jordan’s presenting symptoms. Dr.
Hasan based his diagnosis on the fact that Jordan did not have a fever; her white
blood cell count was mildly elevated; and she had symptoms that included diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, and nausea. He agreed that food is the “typical source of
gastroenteritis.” He did not make a specific determination that his diagnosis of
gastroenteritis “came about as a result of Ms. Jordan consuming food.” He did note
in his records that Jordan told him, “I ate a dubious-tasting kolache.”
When asked about the length of time it takes a person to contract viral
gastroenteritis due to food consumption, Dr. Hasan stated, “It can be anywhere
from—if it appears toxic, it can be within an hour to six hours or it can be as long as
12, 14, 48 hours for incubation.” Dr. Hasan testified that he could not make an
“absolute determination” of what caused Jordan’s symptoms, which is why he wrote
“likely viral gastroenteritis” in Jordan’s medical records. Dr. Hasan testified that
bacterial gastroenteritis—such as that caused by E. coli, salmonella, or shigella—
also occurs, but viral gastroenteritis—such as that caused by norovirus or rotavirus—
4
is far more common. He testified that patients with bacterial gastroenteritis typically
have a fever or bloody diarrhea, but Jordan did not have either of these symptoms.
Dr. Hasan testified that, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, Jordan’s
fainting, nausea, and diarrhea were caused by gastroenteritis and not her underlying
heart condition.
Nisha Virani testified as the corporate representative of BMLA,1 which owned
this particular Murphy’s Deli franchise. Virani was in charge of food processes and
safety and was present at this location “most of the time,” but she was not present
on the morning Jordan purchased the kolache. She testified that BMLA had never
received any complaints concerning the food. Virani testified concerning the routine
that Murphy’s Deli employees followed when handling food, which involved
washing hands and wearing gloves every time food was handled.
Virani also testified that Murphy’s Deli receives kolaches that have been
prepared by a third party, and she described how Murphy’s Deli handles the kolaches
that it receives. Upon receiving the kolaches, employees store them in a freezer with
a notation of the date of receipt and the expiration date. The night before a kolache
is to be set out for sale, an employee removes the kolache from the freezer, wraps it
in saran wrap, and places it in a refrigerator. The next day, the kolache is placed in
1
Virani and her husband own BMLA. BMLA sold this particular Murphy’s Deli
franchise after Jordan’s injury and before BMLA was served with Jordan’s lawsuit.
5
a temperature-controlled unit for sale. If a customer purchases a kolache, an
employee microwaves the kolache for approximately thirty seconds and either places
it on a plate or wraps it up in a to-go bag. If a kolache is not sold, an employee puts
it back in the refrigerator in preparation for sale the next day, except on Fridays,
when all unsold items are discarded. Virani testified that the store’s freezers and
refrigerators are inspected by the City of Houston every six months and by Murphy’s
Deli every month. She stated that there were no issues with the freezers and
refrigerators around the time of this incident.
Murphy’s Deli also presented deposition testimony from Richard Stier, a food
scientist specializing in food safety, sanitation, and food processing. He reviewed
the depositions of Virani, Jordan, and the owner of the distribution company that
provided the kolache to Murphy’s Deli, as well as Jordan’s medical records. Based
on Virani’s deposition testimony, Stier testified that Murphy’s Deli received the
kolaches frozen, kept them in the freezer until the night before they were placed out
for sale when they would be moved to a refrigerator, and were then moved to a
refrigerated display cabinet on the day of sale. Again based on Virani’s deposition
testimony, Stier testified that kolaches were handled at all times by employees
wearing gloves “so there is no human contact directly with the kolache from receipt,
you know, to service with the customer.” Stier testified that, for contamination to
occur, “there would have to be a break in the cold chain at some point in time,” but
6
he had seen no evidence of a break in the cold chain, “no evidence of temperature
abuse of the product,” and no evidence of mishandling resulting in cross-
contamination. He did not see any “evidence to support that this product, this
particular kolache, could have become tainted.”
Stier testified that he is not a doctor, and he did not dispute Dr. Hasan’s
diagnosis. He agreed that gastroenteritis “is a common symptom of most foodborne
illnesses,” that viral gastroenteritis “is a form of food poisoning,” and that a kolache
that causes food poisoning is a “defective” kolache. He testified, however, that based
on Dr. Hasan’s diagnosis of viral gastroenteritis, “there is no way that the kolache
could have caused the illness.” He also agreed that it would be important to know
what Jordan had eaten “10, 12, 24, 36 hours before she had this incident, or who she
was exposed to.” He stated that it would also be important to know whether people
who ate the same food that she did the previous day were affected by food poisoning.
He agreed that it was “pretty important” that Jordan’s family members ate the same
food she did on Sunday night but none of them had food poisoning. He testified,
however, that that does “[n]ot necessarily” rule out the Sunday night dinner as the
cause of her food poisoning because “[p]eople have different sensitivities to different
things.”
Stier also testified that a staphylococcus aureus infection could develop in as
short as thirty minutes. He agreed that experiencing gastroenteritis symptoms within
7
thirty minutes after consuming contaminated food was consistent with exposure to
staph. He testified that staph, if present, can develop in food kept at 70 degrees and
above for three hours or kept at 50 degrees and above for ten hours. He stated that,
according to Virani’s deposition, the night before the kolaches are sold, they are kept
in a refrigerator set between 36 and 38 degrees. He also testified that “having a
dubious flavor does not necessarily mean staph aureus was growing in that.”
The sole theory of liability presented in the jury charge was whether Murphy’s
Deli, in selling the kolache to Jordan, breached the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose.2 The jury found that Murphy’s Deli was engaged in the business
of selling kolaches; Murphy’s Deli breached the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; and Jordan’s injury was proximately caused by the defective
condition of the kolache served to her. The jury awarded Jordan $150,000 for past
physical pain and suffering; $50,000 for future physical pain and suffering; $50,000
for past mental anguish; $25,000 for past physical impairment; $25,000 for future
physical impairment; $90,000 for past physical disfigurement; and $10,000 for
2
This claim was not pleaded. Jordan pleaded both strict liability and breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability. At the charge conference, Jordan argued that
submitting the case under the implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose was
“well within the pleadings” and “[t]he evidence fits it.” The trial court agreed to
submit the case under that theory. Murphy’s Deli argued at trial that there was “no
evidence that the product sold breached any type of implied warranty,” but
Murphy’s Deli has not appealed on this basis.
8
future physical disfigurement. Neither party requested a jury submission on whether
Jordan provided reasonable notice of her injury to Murphy’s Deli.
The trial court entered judgment on the jury verdict.3 Murphy’s Deli moved
for a new trial and asserted several grounds. Murphy’s Deli argued that the jury’s
liability finding was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence,
stating that there was no credible evidence that the kolache was tainted or that
Murphy’s Deli was responsible for any problems with the kolache. Murphy’s Deli
also argued that Jordan failed to plead and prove an essential element of her winning
claim: that she notified Murphy’s Deli of the breach of warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose within a reasonable time period. This motion was overruled by
operation of law, and Jordan appealed.
Evidentiary Sufficiency of Causation
In its first issue, Murphy’s Deli contends that the trial court erred by entering
judgment on the jury verdict because Jordan did not present legally or factually
sufficient evidence that consuming the kolache caused her injuries. We agree that
there was legally insufficient evidence of causation and reverse the judgment.
3
BMLA was entitled to $3,000 in credits and offsets due to co-defendants that had
settled with Jordan. The trial court also awarded pre- and post-judgment interest and
costs to Jordan.
9
A. Standard of Review and Governing Law
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury
verdict, we determine whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-
minded jurors to reach the verdict under review. Berkel & Co. Contractors, Inc. v.
Lee, 612 S.W.3d 280, 284 (Tex. 2020). We must credit favorable evidence if
reasonable jurors could and disregard contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors
could not. Graham Cent. Station, Inc. v. Peña, 442 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex. 2014)
(per curiam); City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005).
We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and indulge
every reasonable inference in favor of the verdict. Gunn v. McCoy, 554 S.W.3d 645,
658 (Tex. 2018) (quoting Bustamante v. Ponte, 529 S.W.3d 447, 456 (Tex. 2017)).
We will sustain a legal sufficiency challenge if (1) there is a complete absence of
evidence of a vital fact; (2) the court is barred by rules of law or evidence from
giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence
offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla; or (4) the evidence
conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at
810. “Evidence does not exceed a scintilla if it is ‘so weak as to do no more than
create a mere surmise or suspicion’ that the fact exists.” Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer
& Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat’l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106, 115 (Tex. 2009)
(quoting Kroger Tex. Ltd P’ship v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788, 793 (Tex. 2006)).
10
To establish causation in a personal injury case, the plaintiff must prove that
the defendant’s conduct caused an event, and this event caused the plaintiff to suffer
compensable injuries. JLG Trucking, LLC v. Garza, 466 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Tex.
2015) (quoting Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex. 1995)).
“[E]xpert testimony is necessary to establish causation as to medical conditions
outside the common knowledge and experience of jurors.” Id. (quoting Guevara v.
Ferrer, 247 S.W.3d 662, 665 (Tex. 2007)).
“[I]f evidence presents ‘other plausible causes of the injury or condition that
could be negated, the [proponent of the testimony] must offer evidence excluding
those causes with reasonable certainty.’” Id. (quoting Transcontinental Ins. Co. v.
Crump, 330 S.W.3d 211, 218 (Tex. 2010)). To constitute evidence of causation, an
expert opinion, whether that opinion is expressed in testimony or in a medical record,
“must rest in reasonable medical probability.” Burroughs Wellcome, 907 S.W.2d at
500. “Reasonable probability is determined by the substance and context of the
opinion, and does not turn on semantics or on the use of a particular term or phrase.”
Id.
B. Preservation
In its motion for new trial, Murphy’s Deli raised several issues, including the
following: “The jury finding of liability against the defendant is against the great
weight and preponderance of the evidence. There is no credible evidence the kolache
11
sold to plaintiff was tainted or that defendant was responsible for any problems
related to the product.” Murphy’s Deli stated, “There is no credible evidence the
food product in question was tainted while in the possession of the Defendant.”
Murphy’s Deli pointed to testimony from Jordan that she became ill within an hour
of consuming the kolache and testimony from Dr. Hasan concerning the incubation
period of viral gastroenteritis. It argued, “The record does not contain any competent
evidence that the incubation period is less than one hour.”
No party has argued that Murphy’s Deli failed to preserve its legal sufficiency
challenge on appeal to this Court. Nevertheless, the dissent would find that Murphy’s
Deli’s allegation of “no credible evidence” in its motion for new trial is linguistically
incapable of raising a legal sufficiency challenge and therefore Murphy’s Deli did
not preserve its legal sufficiency complaint for appellate review. See, e.g., T.O.
Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tex. 1992) (stating ways
in which party may preserve legal sufficiency challenge following civil jury trial).
The dissent reasons that evidentiary credibility is always a question for the jury,
never a threshold test for the court.
We disagree. Although the jury is the ultimate arbiter of lay witness
credibility, the Texas Supreme Court has adopted “gate keeping standards” for
expert testimony. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 812–13. The Texas Supreme
Court has held that “conclusory” expert testimony is “incompetent evidence” that is
12
legally insufficient to support a judgment. Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent.
Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227, 232 (Tex. 2004); Cas. Underwriters v. Rhone,
132 S.W.2d 97, 99 (Tex. 1939) (holding that witness’s statements were “but bare
conclusions and therefore incompetent”); see also Wadewitz v. Montgomery, 951
S.W.2d 464, 466 (Tex. 1997) (stating, in appeal of order denying summary
judgment, that expert witness’s conclusory statement will not “raise a fact issue to
defeat summary judgment”). “A statement of an expert witness that has no facts to
support the expert’s conclusions is insufficient to create a question of
fact . . . because it is not credible . . . .” Shelton v. Sargent, 144 S.W.3d 113, 125–26
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied) (emphasis added). Simply put, in the
realm of expert witnesses, testimony that is not credible is legally insufficient to
support a judgment.
The dissent argues that the term “no evidence” connotes legal insufficiency
whereas the term “no credible evidence” connotes factual insufficiency. Texas
Supreme Court caselaw forecloses this argument. In Jelinek v. Casas, the Texas
Supreme Court confirmed that when sufficiency turns on expert testimony, legal
insufficiency results when there is “no credible evidence.” 328 S.W.3d 526 (Tex.
2010). The court in Jelinek held that the evidence was legally insufficient to support
the jury’s finding that the hospital’s negligence caused the cancer patient’s
additional pain and suffering. Id. at 535–38. Specifically, the court faulted the
13
plaintiff’s medical expert for failing to explain why a negligence-induced infection
was a more medically probable cause than other potential causes of the patient’s
additional pain and suffering. Id. at 536–37. In so holding, the court reiterated the
necessity of “credible evidence” to survive a no-evidence challenge:
Courts should not usurp the jury’s role as fact finder, nor should they
question the jury’s right to believe one witness over another. But when
reviewing a verdict for sufficiency of the evidence, courts need not—
indeed, must not—defer to the jury’s findings when those findings are
not supported by credible evidence. When the evidence compels the
jury to guess if a vital fact exists, a reviewing court does not undermine
the jury’s role by sustaining a no-evidence challenge.
Id. at 538 (emphasis added).
Jelinek’s reasoning is straightforward: when the testimonial evidence supplied
by the expert is not credible, then the court must grant a “no-evidence” challenge.
See id.; see also Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 797 S.W.2d 250, 252 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1990) (“By its third point of error, Holt contends
that there was no credible evidence to support the trial court’s award of $120,000.00
for lost income resulting from the loss of use of the bulldozer. . . . By asserting a ‘no
evidence’ point, Holt is challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence . . . .”),
aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992). Murphy’s
Deli did not waive its legal sufficiency appellate issue.
Finding no waiver of Murphy’s Deli’s legal sufficiency challenge, we proceed
to the merits.
14
C. Sufficiency of the Causation Evidence
To recover against Murphy’s Deli, Jordan was required to prove that
Murphy’s Deli breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and
that her injury was proximately caused by this breach. The test for cause in fact is
whether the illness would not have occurred if Jordan had not eaten the kolache. See
Smith v. Landry’s Crab Shack, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 512, 514 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724, 727
(Tex. 2003) (“The test for cause in fact, or ‘but for causation,’ is whether the act or
omission was a substantial factor in causing the injury ‘without which the harm
would not have occurred.’”) (quoting Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc., 907
S.W.2d 472, 477 (Tex. 1995)). As explained below, we agree with Murphy’s Deli
that there was legally insufficient evidence that the kolache caused Jordan’s illness
and ultimate injuries.
1. Analysis
A finding of cause in fact may be based on circumstantial evidence, but it
cannot be supported by mere conjecture, guess, or speculation. Smith, 183 S.W.3d
at 514. Similarly, a fact may not be inferred from circumstantial evidence that could
support multiple inferences if none are more probable than the others. Lozano v.
Lozano, 52 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. 2001). The jury may not infer an ultimate fact
from “meager circumstantial evidence which could give rise to any number of
15
inferences, none more probable than another.” Hammerly Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards,
958 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Tex. 1997) (quoting Blount v. Bordens, Inc., 910 S.W.2d 931,
933 (Tex. 1995)).
We note at the outset that neither party has presented this Court with any case
in which an alleged food poisoning case was tried under the theory of breach of
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The law implies a warranty that goods
are fit for some particular purpose when the seller, at the time of the transaction, has
reason to know of the particular purpose for which the goods are required and that
the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable
goods. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.315. The particular purpose must be a particular
non-ordinary purpose. Miles v. Ford Motor Co., 922 S.W.2d 572, 587 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 1996), rev’d in part on other grounds, 967 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. 1998); see
Chandler v. Gene Messer Ford, Inc., 81 S.W.3d 493, 503 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2002, pet. denied) (holding that purchasers could not recover against automobile
dealership and manufacturer for breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular
purpose where there was no evidence that they purchased vehicle for any purpose
other than for ordinary purpose of transportation, or that they purchased air bag as
part of vehicle for purpose other than ordinary purpose of providing restraint in event
of collision).
16
Here, it appears that the kolache was purchased for ordinary consumption
purposes, but Murphy’s Deli has not appealed on that basis. Assuming arguendo
that consumption could be a specific and non-ordinary purpose for a kolache, Jordan
has not provided legally sufficient evidence that she would not have fallen ill but for
consuming the kolache.
It is undisputed that no testing was performed on the kolache that sickened
Jordan. Nor was there any testing performed on any other kolaches from Murphy’s
Deli near the time of Jordan’s illness. Murphy’s Deli received no customer
complaints regarding food poisoning near the time that Jordan purchased her
kolache, and Murphy’s Deli had not received any health code violations. And while
Jordan was treated at the hospital for her illness, Jordan did not undergo any testing
to determine what pathogen had caused her symptoms.
Having no such proof, Jordan was required to prove medical causation
through the expert testimony of Dr. Hasan, her treating physician. The Texas
Supreme Court has held that “expert testimony is necessary to establish causation as
to medical conditions outside the common knowledge and experience of
[laypersons].” Guevara, 247 S.W.3d at 665. In the absence of expert medical
testimony, laypersons do not have the common knowledge and experience to
adequately evaluate the cause of Jordan’s gastroenteritis. Therefore, expert medical
testimony was necessary to establish causation.
17
Dr. Hasan therefore had to supply proof that consuming the kolache was—to
a reasonable medical probability—the cause of Jordan’s illness. He did not do so. At
best, Dr. Hasan testified that most gastroenteritis is caused by food, and the kolache
could have caused her illness. This was not enough. To constitute evidence of
medical causation, an expert opinion must rest on reasonable medical probability.
Burroughs Wellcome, 907 S.W.2d at 500. Reasonable probability is determined by
the substance and context of an expert opinion, rather than the use of any particular
words. Id. Where the substance of an expert’s testimony establishes only a mere
possibility, rather than a reasonable probability, of causation, it is no evidence of
causation. See Schaefer v. Tex. Empl’rs’ Ins. Ass’n, 612 S.W.2d 199, 204–05 (Tex.
1980).
Dr. Hasan supplied no testimony that could bridge this analytical gap. It is
undisputed that Jordan consumed the kolache within an hour of falling ill at her
cardiologist’s office. Although Dr. Hasan agreed that it was “a possibility” that “she
had contracted gastroenteritis and experienced a rapid onset within an hour,” he did
not testify that this was a medical probability. According to Dr. Hasan, the latency
period for gastroenteritis can be as long as 72 hours. Dr. Hasan did not testify that
the kolache was more likely to have caused her illness than other foods that she
consumed within that time period. Indeed, he made no attempt to rule out other foods
that she had eaten within the incubation period.
18
Unable to rule out other food sources of her illness, Jordan implicates the
kolache on the ground that it tasted “off” or “dubious.” There is no expert testimony
that would permit the jury to find medical causation based on the kolache’s taste.
Although Dr. Hasan testified that a virus could be present on a food item and infect
a person who eats it, he did not testify that the presence of a virus would affect the
kolache’s taste.
Jordan nevertheless points to the following testimony by Dr. Hasan as
substantiating the necessary connection between the kolache and Jordan’s illness:
Q Okay. Now, seeing as Ms. Jordan had not eaten anything prior
[to] the kolache in eight hours and then she eats a reheated
kolache and then in about an hour falls ill, is it possible that she
had contracted gastroenteritis from exposure to the staph toxin?
A That’s possible.
Q If we’re able to rule out other sources of foodborne illness from
other foods that she had eaten the previous day, do you think
more likely than not the rapid onset of her symptoms following
eating the kolache was caused by this particular type of pathogen
in the kolache?
A I would agree with that.
This testimony is irrelevant for two reasons. First, the exchange was a
hypothetical question about gastroenteritis caused by staphylococcus toxin. Dr.
Hasan testified that staphylococcus is a type of bacteria, not a virus. Dr. Hasan
diagnosed Jordan with viral gastroenteritis, not bacterial gastroenteritis. No
evidence was presented that Jordan had a staphylococcus infection, only speculation
19
that this could be possible. Consequently, this line of questioning regarding the
staphylococcus pathogen does not create a legally sufficient basis for the jury’s
verdict. See Coastal Transp. Co., 136 S.W.3d at 232 (“Opinion testimony that is
conclusory or speculative is not relevant evidence, because it does not tend to make
the existence of a material fact ‘more probable or less probable.’”) (quoting TEX. R.
EVID. 401).
Second, Dr. Hasan did not rule out any other food sources, much less every
other food source that Jordan consumed the previous day. No witness testified to
every meal that Jordan consumed during the entire incubation period. Jordan became
ill on Monday morning, but the record contains no evidence about what she ate
before dinner on Saturday or throughout the day on Friday.
Alternatively, Jordan argues that it was enough for the jury to find that the
kolache contained a “pure toxin” that sickened her. Not so. Dr. Hasan diagnosed
Jordan as having viral gastroenteritis, not as having consumed a “pure toxin.”
Although Dr. Hasan suggested at one point that viral gastroenteritis could “appear
toxic,” he ultimately distinguished between gastroenteritis from ingesting “a
possible toxin or a virus or a potential bacteria.” Later, when questioned specifically
about what toxins could cause viral gastroenteritis, he only referred to bacterial
causes:
Q Okay. If staphylococcus is not viral, which we’ve established?
20
A Correct.
Q All right. Then the staphylococcus can be—cannot be the cause
of her viral gastroenteritis?
A Right.
Q Okay. Now, Doctor, what other toxins could you tell us would
cause viral gastroenteritis?
A So you can have a—the most common one is a shiga toxin. So
you can get that from shigella. Salmonella can also produce a
toxin. E. coli can also produce a toxin. So these are toxins.
Significantly, Dr. Hasan testified unequivocally that “E. coli, salmonella, shigella,
things of that nature” cause bacterial gastroenteritis. These pathogens are not viruses.
Dr. Hasan never identified a single virus that would create a toxin.
Unable to identify a single viral source of “toxins” in food, Dr. Hasan’s
suggestion that Jordan was sickened by a “toxin directly” is pure ipse dixit. “An
expert’s simple ipse dixit is insufficient to establish a matter; rather, the expert must
explain the basis of his statements to link his conclusions to the facts.” Earle v.
Ratliff, 998 S.W.2d 882, 890 (Tex. 1999). When the expert does not explain his
factual basis, the testimony is conclusory, and the judgment cannot stand. See City
of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809, 816 (Tex. 2009). The Texas Supreme
Court has made it clear that “a claim will not stand or fall on the mere ipse dixit of a
credentialed witness.” Id. (quoting Coastal Transp. Co., 136 S.W.3d at 232).
Nothing more exists here.
21
Our holding of legal insufficiency finds support in prior food-poisoning cases
from our Court and the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. In Farroux v. Denny’s
Restaurants, Inc., we affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Denny’s because
there was no evidence that the food consumed at Denny’s had caused the plaintiff’s
illness and hospitalization. 962 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997,
no writ). We held that the plaintiffs’ medical records showed that his diagnosis was
“acute viral gastroenteritis and obesity,” and “[n]othing in the plaintiff’s medical
records indicates that plaintiff suffered from food poisoning after he ate at Denny’s.”
Id. at 109, 110–11. Furthermore, the plaintiff conceded in his deposition that his own
personal physician told him that there were too many possibilities to determine what
caused his illness.4 Id. at 109. Similarly, Dr. Hasan testified that the causes of viral
gastroenteritis are “numerous,” and he did not make a specific determination that the
kolache caused Jordan’s illness.
The Fourteenth Court’s opinion in Smith v. Landry’s Crab Shack, Inc. is also
instructive. See 183 S.W.3d at 514. In that case, plaintiff Smith sued Landry’s for
strict liability, breach of warranties, DTPA violations, and negligence after she
allegedly suffered food poisoning as a result of eating at a Joe’s Crab Shack. Id. The
4
The plaintiff later filed a sham affidavit to the contrary, which we rejected. See
Farroux v. Denny’s Rests., Inc., 962 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1997, no writ).
22
trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, and the Fourteenth Court
affirmed.
The evidence in Smith was even stronger than the evidence presented here.
Smith testified that the food she ate at Joe’s Crab Shack “was the only food she had
consumed within the 20 hours preceding the onset of her illness,” and the meal she
had eaten prior to the restaurant “had also been eaten by her entire family without
incident.” Id. Whereas Dr. Hasan never testified to the “most common” onset period
for foodborne gastroenteritis, Smith’s medical expert testified that the “most
common” period for onset was 24 hours from consumption. Id. at 515.
Smith’s medical expert did not stop there. He also testified that (1) none of
the circumstances of Smith’s illness or treatment was inconsistent with a diagnosis
of gastroenteritis; (2) gastroenteritis can be caused by bacteria in food; (3) many
foods can be a carrier for such bacteria; (4) different bacteria have different
incubation periods before a person begins to experience symptoms; (5) starting to
experience symptoms within five hours of a meal and getting sick enough to be
admitted to a hospital within about ten hours of a meal would, in reasonable medical
probability, be “consistent with” food-borne gastroenteritis; and (6) although it was
possible that Smith had gastroenteritis from some other source than food poisoning,
it was “more likely” that she had food poisoning considering “the clinical history
and the set up.” Id. at 514–15.
23
Even so, the Fourteenth Court found that this testimony was legally
insufficient to create a fact issue. Id. at 515. That was because the medical expert’s
“opinion that Smith’s gastroenteritis was caused by food rather than another source
was not stated as being in reasonable medical probability, but only as being more
likely, and because he provided no factual basis or explanation for why the clinical
history and set up showed this to be the case.” Id.The testimony here fares no better. Dr. Hasan did not testify that the kolache
was—in reasonable medical probability—the source of Jordan’s gastroenteritis. Nor
did he provide any clinical history or set up to support such a conclusion. And
although Dr. Hasan agreed to “give . . . the standard of reasonable medical
probability, more likely than not” at the outset of his testimony, these words are not
a cure-all. Reasonable probability is determined by the substance and context of an
expert opinion, rather than the use of any particular words. Burroughs Wellcome,
907 S.W.2d at 500. Dr. Hasan’s testimony regarding the kolache did not meet this
threshold. Furthermore, the Smith court noted that there was “no evidence that any
bacteria was actually found in Smith’s system that could have caused food
poisoning, let alone any evidence of its source.” 183 S.W.3d at 515 n.2. The same is
true here.
24
2. Response to the Dissent
The dissent cites multiple cases in support of its argument that the evidence
was legally sufficient. Many of those cases supply striking contrasts that reveal why
there is no legally competent testimony here. For example, in Wilson v. Circus
Circus Hotels, Inc., the Nevada Supreme Court found sufficient evidence where the
plaintiff’s medical expert gave an “80% chance” that the hotel’s food had caused the
child’s salmonella poisoning where the child had eaten exclusively at the hotel
during the 52 hours before the onset of symptoms. 710 P.2d 77, 78 (Nev. 1985) (per
curiam). There was also testimony that “[m]ost people become ill [from salmonella
poisoning] within 36 hours of ingestion.” Id. at 79. By contrast, Jordan ate only one
meal at Murphy’s Deli during the incubation period for gastroenteritis, and Dr.
Hasan never testified that most people become ill within an hour of ingestion.
San Francisco v. Wendy’s International is equally revealing. There, the
plaintiff’s medical expert “eliminated various likely causes and concluded that the
most probable cause of Mr. San Francisco’s problem was a foodborne illness caused
by the allegedly undercooked Wendy’s hamburger.” San Francisco v. Wendy’s Int’l,
Inc., 656 S.E.2d 485, 497 (W. Va. 2007). When asked why he chose the undercooked
hamburger as the cause of plaintiff’s illness as opposed to other possibilities, the
expert explained that “[i]t’s the highest probability of a series of possibilities.” Id.
25By contrast, Dr. Hasan did not purport to eliminate any other sources—food
or otherwise—as the cause of Jordan’s illness. This failure is particularly
problematic given Jordan’s purchase of the food on Medical Center grounds, where
Jordan could have encountered other germ sources. Nor did Dr. Hasan rank the
kolache against other possible sources of illness.
The dissent’s other cases are distinguishable because they did not require
expert testimony on medical causation. Miller v. Atl. Bottling Corp., 191 S.E.2d 518,
519–20 (S.C. 1972);5 Patterson v. Kevon, LLC, 818 S.E.2d 575, 580–81 (Ga. 2018)
(reversing summary judgment in favor of defendant catering company even though
plaintiff did not present expert testimony on causation when defendant’s
circumstantial evidence failed to rebut plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence). That path
is foreclosed here. The Texas Supreme Court has reiterated that “expert testimony is
necessary to establish causation as to medical conditions outside the common
knowledge and experience” of laypersons. Guevara, 247 S.W.3d at 665; see JLG
Trucking, 466 S.W.3d at 162. Ordinary laypersons do not have the expertise to
5
Miller is readily distinguishable. The plaintiff vomited repeatedly after discovering
a “large mass of unidentified foreign substance” with a “vile” smell and taste in a
Mountain Dew that she was consuming. Miller v. Atl. Bottling Corp., 191 S.E.2d
518, 519 (S.C. 1972). The South Carolina Supreme Court held that “[n]either a
chemical analysis nor expert testimony was necessary to establish that such a
substance in a bottled drink was unwholesome and unfit for human consumption.”
Id. Here, there was no evidence of a foreign mass inside the kolache that could
dispense with a need for expert testimony.
26
determine the cause of viral gastroenteritis. Expert testimony, therefore, was
necessary.
Finally, the dissent cites a Texas case—Hebert v. Loveless—for the
proposition that expert testimony on medical causation should not be required in the
face of significant circumstantial evidence of food poisoning. See 474 S.W.2d 732,
738 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1971, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (upholding food-poisoning
verdict against restaurant from legal and factual sufficiency challenges where at least
fifteen persons became ill after eating at same restaurant on same date). We need not
examine this question, as a food product’s mere “dubious” or “off” taste is not in the
same league as fifteen people falling ill on the same day with similar symptoms. But
even so, the Hebert case had expert testimony of the sort that is missing here: two
physicians testified that their patients were sickened by something that they ate or
drank at the restaurant. Id. at 735–76. Dr. Hasan drew no such conclusion.
Ultimately, the dissent hangs its hat on two pieces of evidence: Dr. Hasan’s
testimony that gastroenteritis is more often than not caused by food, 6 and the
evidence that the kolache tasted “off.” This is not enough. To humanity’s chagrin,
6
Dr. Hasan did not testify that viral gastroenteritis—as opposed to gastroenteritis
from all sources—is more often than not caused by food. This distinction matters.
A statement that is true with respect to a broad category is not necessarily true as to
a subcategory. For example, it is accurate to say that birds, more often than not, are
able to fly. Penguins are birds, but it would not be accurate to say that penguins,
more often than not, are able to fly.
27
gastroenteritis is a common ailment. Texas precedent demands more: competent
expert testimony on the medical probability of causation. Lacking such evidence, we
must reverse.
3. Remand for New Trial
Despite the legal insufficiency of the evidence, we are compelled to remand
for new trial in lieu of entering a take-nothing judgment. If a party raises a legal
sufficiency challenge for the first time in context of a motion for new trial, then the
party will be entitled only to a remand for new trial, not a rendition of judgment.
Werner v. Colwell, 909 S.W.2d 866, 870 n.1 (Tex. 1995) (op. on reh’g) (remanding
after sustaining legal insufficiency point because complaint was preserved only by
motion for new trial); Horrocks v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., 852 S.W.2d 498, 499 (Tex.
1993) (per curiam) (holding that where legal sufficiency challenge was preserved
only by motion for new trial, appellate court can only remand, not render judgment);
El-Khoury v. Kheir, 241 S.W.3d 82, 90 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet.
denied) (holding that because appellant did not seek rendition of different judgment
in trial court on basis of no evidence to support element of damages, appellate court
could not “enlarge the relief preserved through the method that [appellant] chose”
and was required to remand for new trial).
Here, Murphy’s Deli did not move for a directed verdict on the medical
proximate causation question at trial. Murphy’s Deli raised this issue for the first
28
time in a motion for new trial. Consequently, we remand for a new trial and need not
address Murphy’s Deli’s factual sufficiency point. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
Notification of Breach of Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose
In its second issue, Murphy’s Deli argues that the judgment must be reversed
because Jordan failed to secure a jury finding that she had notified Murphy’s Deli of
the alleged breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Texas
Business and Commerce Code section 2.607(c)(1) requires the purchaser of goods,
within a reasonable time, to notify the seller of any breach of warranty or be barred
from any remedy under the theory of breach of warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose. See TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.607(c)(1) (“[T]he buyer must within a
reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the
seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.”); U.S. Tire-Tech, Inc. v. Boeran,
B.V., 110 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied).
It is undisputed that the jury did not make any finding on whether Jordan
provided Murphy’s Deli with notice of a breach of warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose. Neither party ever requested such a finding. Further, no party objected to
the omission of a question on whether Jordan notified Murphy’s Deli of a breach of
warranty for a particular purpose.
In this procedural posture, Murphy’s Deli argues that the judgment cannot
stand because Jordan bore the burden of proof on the question of notice, and there is
29
no evidence that she ever supplied Murphy’s Deli with notice of a breach of warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose. By contrast, Jordan argues alternatively that
(1) Murphy’s Deli waived this issue in the trial court; (2) Jordan was excused from
the requirement of providing notice; and (3) Jordan supplied the requisite notice by
filing suit against Murphy’s Deli.
“When an element of a claim is omitted from the jury charge without objection
and no written findings are made by the trial court on that element then the omitted
element is deemed to have been found by the court in such manner as to support the
judgment.” Serv. Corp. Int’l v. Guerra, 348 S.W.3d 221, 228–29 (Tex. 2011) (citing
TEX. R. CIV. P. 279 and In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 262–63 (Tex. 2002)). Here
neither party objected to the charge on the basis that it omitted the element of notice
and the trial court did not make findings on that element, so there is a deemed finding
in support of the judgment. See id. at 229. “But just as with any other finding, there
must be evidence to support a deemed finding” in Jordan’s favor on the element of
notice. See id. The question then becomes “whether legally sufficient evidence
supports the finding here.” Id.; Ramos v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 784 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Tex.
1990).
We need not resolve this question. As with its challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence, Murphy’s Deli raised its challenge to the element of notice only in its
motion for new trial. Consequently, even assuming arguendo that notice is an
30
essential element of Jordan’s claim that she had to prove at trial, Murphy’s Deli
would be limited to the remedy of a new trial even if the evidence is legally
insufficient to support a deemed finding. See Werner, 909 S.W.2d at 870 n.1;
Horrocks, 852 S.W.2d at 499; cf. 6 McDonald & Carlson, Tex. Civ. Prac. App. Prac.
§ 18:16 (2d ed. 2020) (concluding that “deemed findings must be supported by
evidence” and must “be attacked on the same basis as jury findings”). Because we
are already remanding for a new trial due to the legal insufficiency of the causation
evidence, we do not reach Murphy’s Deli’s second issue. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
Conclusion
We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial.
April L. Farris
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Farris.
Justice Goodman, dissenting.
31