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 :

Link to the 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.