April 27th,
2005 press release from Earthjustice
Supreme
Court Allows Citizens to Seek Legal Redress for Harm Caused By
Pesticides
Manufacturers' attempt to lock courthouse doors fails
Washington, DC-- The United States Supreme Court today upheld
the right of people to sue pesticide manufacturers to compensate
them for injuries caused by toxic pesticides.
Patti Goldman, managing attorney for Earthjustice in Seattle,
was the principal author of the friend of the court brief submitted
by public health and conservation groups in this case arguing
that pesticide makers can be held accountable in court for pesticide-caused
injuries.
Statement
on today’s ruling by Patti Goldman:
“This
decision is a victory for fairness to individuals who are poisoned
by toxic pesticides. This decision makes pesticide manufacturers
accountable for the harm their products cause and creates incentives
for those corporations to refrain from promoting dangerous pesticides
and to make sure their labels disclose and guard against the risks
posed by these products.”
Background:
In Bates v.
Dow Agrosciences, the US Supreme Court was asked to determine
whether federal pesticide law closes the courthouse doors to people
injured by pesticides. In Bates, Texas farmers applied an herbicide
called “Strongarm” to prevent weeds in their peanut
crops, but Strongarm stunted the peanut crops, causing serious
economic damage. The Texas farmers went to state court in an effort
to make the pesticide makers pay for damage to the crops. The
pesticide makers claimed they are shielded from court challenges
by federal law, the key dispute before the US Supreme Court. The
importance of the case, however, goes beyond the right to recover
for crop damage. The Supreme Court’s ruling also determined
that thousands of people harmed by pesticides can hold pesticide
companies accountable in state courts for making and distributing
dangerous chemicals. Pesticide companies had claimed that federal
law shields them from all such suits. The court ruled against
the pesticide companies today.
Under federal
pesticide law, pesticide companies must write and update labels
for their products that guard against adverse health and environmental
effects. EPA approves the labels submitted by the companies under
a risk-benefit standard that does not prevent all harm to the
public. A pesticide is misbranded if its label does not provide
adequate health and environmental protection, and EPA’s
approval of the label is no defense to a misbranding offense.
Dow Agrosciences,
joined by the Bush administration, had argued that federal law
insulates pesticide makers from injured parties’ lawsuits.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, upholding the right
to sue for harm caused by defectively designing, negligent testing,
and misbranding a pesticide.
While federal
law preempts state labeling “requirements,” in today’s
ruling, the Court recognized that:
“[a]
requirement is a rule of law that must be obeyed; an event,
such as a jury verdict, that merely motivates an optional decision
is not a requirement…The long history of tort litigation
against manufacturers of poisonous substances adds force to
the basic presumption against pre-emption. If Congress had intended
to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compensation,
it surely would have expressed that intent more clearly.”
The friend
of the court brief written by Earthjustice, Public Citizen, and
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, urged the Court to preserve
citizens’ rights to recover for harms caused by pesticides
on behalf of: Physicians for Social Responsibility, Farmworker
Justice Fund, Beyond Pesticides, Sierra Club, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Public Citizen, and Trial
Lawyers for Public Justice.