Bowen v. E I DuPont
Reference :
580,2005
Complaint date :
August 18, 1997
Status :
Final judgment
Place of jurisdiction :
United States, Delaware
Plaintiffs types :
Individuals
Plaintiffs names :
Matthew Bowen, Melissa Ellis, Martin Griffin, Trudi Griffin
Defendants :
Dupont De Nemours
Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :
Thomas C. Crumplar, Joel S. Perwin
Case nature :
Civil court
Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :
Benlate, Benomyl, Fungicide
Requests :
Prove the link between mothers' exposure to benlate during pregnancy and their children's malformations. Appeal from the Superior Court's Order excluding two of the plaintiffs' experts' opinions and the resulting grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.
Name of the Court :
Supreme Court of Delaware, United States
Jurisdiction level :
Decision date :
September 15, 2006
Decision nature :
Negative
Decision content :
After excluding Bowen’s experts testimonies on causation, the court dismissed the case. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court of Delaware on Sept. 15, 2006.
Legal basis :
Court Ruling :
Summary :
Plaintiffs sue DuPont, manufacturer of fungicide Benlate (active ingredient benomyl), which they allege caused their children's teratogenic birth defects, due to the mothers' exposure while pregnant. But the court excluded the testimonies of Bowen’s experts, finding them unreliable under Daubert and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The decision refers to Bourne v. DuPont (CIV A 2:97-0090 02-1469). After excluding Bowen’s experts opinions on causation, the court granted DuPont motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed on July 12, 2006. On September 15, 2006 , the Supreme Court of Delaware confirms.
Scientific references :
No scientifice reference for this case.
Related links :