Arnold

Arnold v. Dow Chemical Company

Good Law
110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 722·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 639·2001 Daily Journal DAR 8649·91 Cal. App. 4th 698·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7082
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 14, 2001B143708California11,818 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nott, J.

Appellants Ashley and Alexa Arnold, through Michelle Arnold, as guardian ad litem, appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents Q.B. Scott Company, Inc. (Scott), Lumber City Corporation (Lumber City), Ezell Nursery Supply, Inc. (Ezell), Dow Agrosciences, LLC, and The Dow Chemical Company (collectively referred to as Dow), Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. (Van Waters), FMC Corporation (FMC), and Bayer Corporation (Bayer); collectively referred to as respondents.

At issue is whether the preemption provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. § 136v; FIFRA) operate to foreclose appellants’ state common law causes of action. We conclude that appellants’ causes of action are not preempted. It is important to note that if the state common law claims are preempted, then appellants will have absolutely no recourse for their injuries, since no private right of action exists under FIFRA. Here, the record shows that appellants used the pesticides which allegedly caused their injuries, as directed. Under those facts, we believe that the burden of the cost of serious injury actually caused by…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.