Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Packers and Stockyards Act

Packers Cannot Challenge Damages As Too Low

Eric Pendergrass
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In the case of Schumacher v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 447 F.Supp.2d 1078, the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota upheld the jury's determination of damages despite the unique challenge made by the defendants concerning the adequacy of the award and its ability to compensate the plaintiffs as a class.

Following a determination that three meat packers were liable for violating the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA), the jury awarded damages to the class of plaintiffs, who were beef producers, in the amount of $9,250,000 in spite of the fact that there was sufficient evidence to support a verdict of over $38,000,000. Id. at 1081. The packers took the unusual step of challenging the adequacy of the amount of damages awarded against them. Id. The court held that the packers did not have standing to make this challenge. Id.

The packers also argued that the jury's award of damages was merely speculative and not supported by the evidence. The court rejected this claim because the packers did not request special interrogatories and the jury members were properly instructed on weighing the creditability of the witnesses and experts. Id. at 1081-82. With liability already determined, it was in the jury's charge to determine the amount of damages, and the amount that was awarded fell "within the mathematical limitations set forth by the witnesses and the trial evidence as a whole." Id. at 1082.

The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act (LMRA) amended the PSA to eliminate any private cause of action relating to the underlying factual dispute regarding the improper use of misprinted boxed beef prices to purchase the class members' cattle. See Id. at 1085. This rejection came with the reassertion of an order from the pretrial stages of the litigation stating that the LMRA did not apply and the PSA did allow recovery by a "person or persons" in addition to administrative enforcement action by the Secretary of Agriculture. Id at 1086.

The case was decided on August 15, 2006; this summary was posted Feb. 21, 2006.