Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in St. Louis
ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court has affirmed a multimillion-dollar jury verdict awarded to a former food manufacturing worker who alleged he developed a debilitating lung disease after exposure to chemical flavorings, rejecting all claims of error raised by the manufacturer.
The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District upheld a judgment against Givaudan Flavors Corporation, which had been ordered to pay $1,529,500 in compensatory damages and $56,631,960 in punitive damages to James J. Graham, according to a decision filed April 7.
The court found no abuse of discretion or legal error in the trial proceedings and affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in full.
Graham, who worked at a General Mills plant in Hannibal from 2005 to 2011, alleged he was exposed to flavoring chemicals containing diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione, which caused him to develop bronchiolitis obliterans, a permanent and progressive lung disease.
The illness significantly reduced his lung capacity, leaving him struggling to breathe and unable to engage in many daily activities, according to the court document.
A jury initially awarded Graham $2 million in compensatory damages and more than $56 million in punitive damages.
The compensatory amount was later reduced to account for prior settlements with other defendants, resulting in the final judgment affirmed on appeal.
The court found that testimony from Graham’s expert witnesses, including an environmental health scientist and a pulmonologist, was properly admitted.
It concluded their opinions were based on sufficient facts, reliable methodologies, and established scientific principles, and that any weaknesses in their conclusions were matters for the jury to weigh rather than grounds for exclusion.
The opinion also upheld several evidentiary rulings made by the trial court, including the exclusion of evidence related to cigarette smoke and the admission of evidence showing similar respiratory injuries among workers at other plants.
The court determined that the excluded cigarette-related evidence had limited probative value and posed a risk of confusing the jury, while the admitted evidence of other workplace injuries was relevant to demonstrate the company’s knowledge of potential harm.
Givaudan further argued that the verdict should be overturned because Graham failed to present a submissible case, but the appellate court found the company’s arguments were improperly briefed and, regardless, unsupported by the record.
The court noted that evidence showed Givaudan supplied products containing harmful chemicals to Graham’s workplace and that he was exposed to them.
The court also upheld the punitive damages award, finding sufficient evidence that Givaudan acted with conscious disregard for worker safety.
The opinion cited evidence that the company had known for decades about the potential dangers of diacetyl and related compounds, including internal documentation of worker illnesses and scientific research linking the chemicals to lung disease.
Despite this knowledge, the company continued to market the products and did not add warning labels until 2019.
In addressing the size of the punitive damages award, the court applied established constitutional guideposts and concluded the amount did not violate due process.
The court noted the severity of Graham’s injuries, the company’s prolonged failure to act, and evidence suggesting deliberate disregard for health risks.
The court also found that Givaudan’s substantial net worth supported a larger punitive award to achieve deterrence.
The court also rejected Givaudan’s argument that Missouri’s statutory cap on punitive damages should apply, ruling that Graham’s claims were analogous to causes of action recognized at common law in 1820 and therefore protected by the constitutional right to a jury trial.
The court affirmed the award of post-judgment interest on the full amount of the judgment, including punitive damages, concluding that state law required interest to accrue on the entire judgment balance.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, St. Louis University Law School Division case number: ED113318
