Bourne v. E I DuPont

CIV A 2:97-0090 02-1469
February 3, 1997
Final judgment
United States

Individuals
Andrew Bourne (minor), Christopher and Maggie Bourne (parents)
Dupont De Nemours
James L. Ferraro, Lynn M. Holtzman, Markenzy Lapointe, Diana L. Rolfs, Scott S. Segal

Civil court
Benlate, Benomyl, Carbamate, Fungicide
Prove the link between Ms Bourne exposure to benlate during pregnancy and her son's malformation.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United States
Appellate (Appeal) Court

January 27, 2004
Negative
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.
National law

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.