Clifford v. Crop Production Services

Reference :

10-1377

Complaint date :

No description

Status :

Final judgment

Place of jurisdiction :

United States

Plaintiffs types :

Farmers

Plaintiffs names :

John Clifford

Defendants :

Crop Production Services (CPS)

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

Bryan T. Schurter

Case nature :

Civil court

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

Glyphosate, Sulfonylurea, Herbicide, Pigment-inhibitor, Steadfast, Callisto

Requests :

The plaintiff appeals both the exclusion of his expert witness and the district court's grant of summary judgment.

Name of the Court :

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit, United States

Jurisdiction level :

Decision date :

November 29, 2010

Decision nature :

Negative

Decision content :

Decision of Illinois district court confirmed in appeal. The district court had granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment after excluding the plaintiff’s expert witness and concluding that, without expert testimony, the plaintiff’s claim failed as a matter of law.

Legal basis :

Court Ruling :

Link to the ruling

Summary :

After noticing weeds in his corn fields in 2007, Clifford contracted CPS for treatment. CPS recommended a custom blend of 2 herbicides. Within a week of spraying, Clifford began to notice damage to the corn and was led to suspect that the damage was caused by glyphosate. Clifford then filed a suit against CPS, alleging negligence and breach of implied warranty. Clifford eventually dropped the implied warranty claim, leaving only the negligence claim. The district court determined that the expert testimony was inadmissible due to Clifford's failure to disclose it in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(A). The court then granted CPS's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that, without such testimony, Clifford could not establish the causation and breach of duty elements of his negligence claim. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit confirms Illinois District Court decision.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.