Background
K.W., who was born prematurely in 2017, received Abbott and Mead Johnson preterm infant formulas at St. Louis Children’s Hospital after his mother had difficulty producing breast milk. He was diagnosed with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and underwent surgery.
Through his mother, K.W. sued the formula manufacturers and the hospital, alleging the formulas were defectively designed, unreasonably dangerous because they increased NEC risk, and inadequately warned of that risk. After a four-week trial, a jury found for all defendants. The trial court later approved K.W.’s settlement with the hospital and granted a new trial against Abbott and Mead, including because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting a new trial. A trial court has broad discretion under Missouri Rule 78.02 to grant one new trial when it finds a verdict against the weight of the evidence, and the appellate court may not reweigh the competing evidence or assess witness credibility.
The court held that K.W. made a submissible case on each claim. Conflicting expert testimony on causation did not defeat submissibility, the warning claim could rely on Missouri’s presumption that an adequate warning would have been heeded, and Abbott’s reliance on a closing-argument statement did not establish an impermissible categorical challenge to all infant formula. The trial court expressly identified the weight of the evidence as a basis for a new trial and was not required to detail its weighing process. Because that ground supported the ruling, the court did not reach the manufacturers’ remaining appellate arguments.
Key Takeaways
- Missouri appellate courts afford substantial deference to a trial court’s grant of a new trial based on the weight of the evidence.
- Conflicting causation experts can still support a submissible products-liability case.
- An order expressly finding that a verdict is against the weight of the evidence need not set out a detailed evidentiary analysis.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the limited role of appellate courts when a trial judge grants a new trial after weighing contested evidence. Defendants cannot obtain reversal merely by pointing to evidence supporting the jury’s defense verdict.
For failure-to-warn litigation, the opinion also confirms the practical significance of Missouri’s heeded-warning presumption at the submissibility stage.