In December 2024, we reported on a City of St. Louis, Missouri jury verdict in favor of baby formula manufacturers in a lawsuit claiming their specialized infant formulas for premature babies caused an infant to develop necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a potentially fatal condition. This was a landmark win for the manufacturers who have been embroiled in ongoing litigation for several years, especially considering the plaintiff in this case asked the jury for a staggering $6 billion in punitive damages. Although the defense verdict in this case seemingly cleared the manufacturers, a St. Louis Court recently negated the verdict and ordered a new trial.
The Court began its order granting a new trial by noting that two of the plaintiff’s many contentions of error required distinct and separate consideration by the Court: (1) evidence the plaintiff’s mother smoked marijuana during pregnancy, and (2) attorney misconduct.
Regarding marijuana use, the Court had granted a pretrial ruling permitting defendants to introduce expert testimony that the plaintiff’s mother smoked marijuana during her pregnancy. Defendants alleged this caused or contributed to cause the plaintiff’s NEC and developmental delays, not the infant formula. Citing the benefit of hindsight, the Court backtracked from its prior ruling, finding it to have been erroneous and that the probative value of the expert testimony did not outweigh the prejudicial nature of introducing evidence that the plaintiff’s mother smoked marijuana while pregnant. Despite the error, the plaintiff did not meet his burden to show prejudice from this error alone because the plaintiff voluntarily opened the door for this evidence by introducing it during his opening statement.
With respect to attorney misconduct, the Court found prejudicial error for arguments, questions, and evidence related to four specific topics. First, it found the defendants elicited highly prejudicial testimony from an expert regarding the timing of genetic testing despite the Court’s direct orders excluding this evidence. Second, it found the defendants introduced an inflammatory defense against nonexistent claims in an attempt to convince that jury that the plaintiff’s request would result in infants starving to death. Third, it found the defendants introduced evidence leading the jury to believe that the FDA gave de facto approval of its infant formula, despite the Court’s prohibition. Finally, it found the defendants repeatedly referenced and even read into evidence a document that the Court had previously deemed inadmissible.
The Court found the cumulative effect of these errors and introduction of other inadmissible evidence to be so prejudicial that it denied the plaintiff a fair trial. The infant formula manufacturers have both filed notices of appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District.
Initially vindicated by a St. Louis jury, infant formula manufacturers now face renewed legal challenges following the Court’s finding of prejudicial error. This decision underscores the complexities and high stakes involved in such litigation, as infant formula manufacturers continue to navigate the legal landscape. The forthcoming appeals will be crucial in determining the future course of this case and its broader implications for the industry.