Clifford v. Crop Production Services

No description
Final judgment
United States

John Clifford
Crop Production Services (CPS)
Bryan T. Schurter

Civil court
Glyphosate, Sulfonylurea, Herbicide, Pigment-inhibitor, Steadfast, Callisto
The plaintiff appeals both the exclusion of his expert witness and the district court's grant of summary judgment.
United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit, United States

November 29, 2010
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.

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.