Food Safety Expert Allowed to Opine on the Risk of Contamination

On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff Jodi Dovel ordered a Taco Pizza from Casey's General Store. Dovel was subsequently diagnosed with an exposure to illness-causing E. coli infection which required medical treatment.

Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's food safety expert, Paul Romanos, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Romanos authored an expert report based on his review of materials in the record and concluded that Defendant failed to consistently follow the standard of care for food safety.

Food Safety Expert Witness

Paul J. Romanos Jr. is an expert on food service and safety with broad experience in the hospitality industry. For 30 years, Romanos has worked for some of the most recognizable names in the business.

Want to know more about the challenges Paul Romanos has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

Defendant argued that Plaintiff cannot carry her burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Romanos' opinions are relevant, helpful, and admissible. Defendant argued that Romanos' report is conclusory and contains "irrelevant assumptions that are largely generalized and do not address any particular facts of this matter." Defendant also took issue with the absence of an opinion on causation in the report. The Court disagreed.

Romanos' testimony is relevant to Plaintiff's claims and helpful to a jury. Some of Romanos' opinions are case-specific; he connects his opinions about dangerous conditions known to contaminate foods and surfaces to health code violations found in the Smithville Casey's kitchen prior to the incident. Romanos' generalized opinions about the dangerous conditions known to contaminate food are also relevant and helpful. Expert testimony is not offered in a vacuum, and here, Plaintiff intended to offer Romanos' testimony in conjunction with lay witness testimony from former Casey's employees describing the food preparation and cleaning practices that existed at the Smithville Casey's around the time Plaintiff's pizza was made. The opinions Romanos intended to offer on general principles of food safety and the conditions that cause or increase the risk of food contamination will assist the jury in understanding the implications of the practices identified by the lay witnesses—who lack the specialized knowledge to draw these conclusions themselves.

Defendant's remaining arguments are unpersuasive. It is undisputed that Romanos is qualified to testify about food safety. Romanos' inability to conclude that dangerous conditions existed on the exact date Plaintiff's taco pizza was made goes to the credibility and weight of his opinions, not admissibility. Moreover, Plaintiff intends to produce an epidemiologist to testify as to specific causation.

For these reasons, Romanos is qualified to testify as an expert and his opinions will assist the fact finder in determining the ultimate questions of liability in this case. Defendant's motion is therefore denied. Nonetheless, Romanos may not testify beyond his expertise, opine to conclusions unsupported by evidence, or opine beyond what is relevant based on the development of evidence at trial.

Held

The Court denied Defendant Casey's Marketing Company's motion to exclude the testimony of Paul Romanos.

Key Takeaway

Once initial expert qualifications and usefulness to the jury are established, however, a district court must continue to perform its gatekeeping role by ensuring that the actual testimony does not exceed the scope of the expert's expertise.

Case Details: