Bourne v. E I DuPont

Reference :

CIV A 2:97-0090 02-1469

Complaint date :

February 3, 1997

Status :

Final judgment

Place of jurisdiction :

United States

Plaintiffs types :

Individuals

Plaintiffs names :

Andrew Bourne (minor), Christopher and Maggie Bourne (parents)

Defendants :

Dupont De Nemours

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

James L. Ferraro, Lynn M. Holtzman, Markenzy Lapointe, Diana L. Rolfs, Scott S. Segal

Case nature :

Civil court

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

Benlate, Benomyl, Carbamate, Fungicide

Requests :

Prove the link between Ms Bourne exposure to benlate during pregnancy and her son's malformation.

Name of the Court :

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States

Jurisdiction level :

Decision date :

January 27, 2004

Decision nature :

Negative

Decision content :

After excluding Bourne’s only expert testimony on causation, the US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston) granted DuPont motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. This was confirmed in appeal on 01/27/2004.

Legal basis :

Court Ruling :

Link to the ruling

Summary :

Plaintiff sues DuPont, manufacturer of fungicide Benlate (active ingredient benomyl), which he alleges caused his teratogenic birth defects, due to Mrs. Bourne's exposure while pregnant. But the district court excluded the testimony of Bourne’s experts, finding it unreliable under Daubert and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. After excluding Bourne’s only expert testimony on causation, the district court granted DuPont motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.On January 27, 2004, the Court of Appeals confirms.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.