$26.5M Benlate Award (vs Dupont) Tossed Over Improper Jury Instruction

This happens all the time. Appeals courts find ways to help out big businesses subject to the occassional big award for the little guy. In fact, see the last paragraph...this was the second time DuPont was saved by a FL appeals court after losing at trial in two months. I guess the message to businesses in Fl: if you're not a huge business, move out of the state. Hell, move out of the country until all the Bushes are gone.

Why should DuPont care if their products destroy somebody's business if they have Appeals judges out there ready to shift costs and risk back down to the little guy.

I'd bet a lot of money that the panel that heard this case was made up of Bush appointees.


The 3rd District Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the jury verdict because Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Amy Steele Donner, who presided over the trial, gave an improper jury instruction. The appeals court also said the size of the award was not supported by the record.

The court, however, affirmed a ruling by Judge Donner following the six-week trial in August 2001, in which she dismissed state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims against DuPont, which is based in Wilmington, Del. Donner's ruling meant that the nurseries could not receive triple damages, as provided for under the RICO statute.

The plant nurseries, Palmas y Bambu and Producturas de Semillas, had sued DuPont on charges of racketeering, fraud, negligence and product defect. The nurseries claimed that DuPont knew that Benlate caused widespread plant damage based on secret tests it conducted in 1992 in Costa Rica. DuPont officials allegedly conspired to cover up the evidence of damage by destroying the test results when its Benlate customers began filing product liability lawsuits.

...

Last month, the state's 4th DCA overturned a $12.5 million jury verdict in Broward County Circuit Court against DuPont in a product liability case involving an Ecuadorean shrimp farm that claimed Benlate runoff destroyed its shellfish harvests.


http://biz.yahoo.com/law/040528/d8509a1e218230a1857ec27a10aa26b9_1.html

http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/wel.htm

LEGAL OFFICES & POSITIONS: Judge, Third District Court of Appeal 2003-present; Chief District Legal Counsel, District 11, Florida Department of Children & Families, 1999-2002; partner, Russo, Wells & Associates, 1996-99; equity partner, Holland & Knight, LLP, 1994-96; associate, partner, Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash & Block, 1977-94.

Overview

Before its production ceased in 2001, Benlate® had long been one of the company’s most successful fungicides and was registered worldwide for many crops. The active ingredient in Benlate®, benomyl, was first synthesized by DuPont research Hein L. Klopping in July 1959. Benlate® was introduced in 1970 in a wettable powder form made at the Belle, West Virginia, plant. In 1987 DuPont introduced an alternative, dry-flowable form (Benlate® 50 DF) that was recalled in 1989 and 1991 due to the presence of the herbicide atrazine in some lots. The recalls generated hundreds of claims, and growers and their lawyers began blaming Benlate® 50 DF (even product free of atrazine) for a wide range of plant problems. DuPont initially paid many claims to maintain good customer relations, and at the same time initiated the most intensive investigation in the history of U.S. agriculture to determine whether Benlate® 50 DF could cause plant damage. When the testing could not duplicate the claimed plant injuries, the company declined to pay any further claims.

In the following decade, DuPont faced hundreds of Benlate® lawsuits. The litigation results were mixed. DuPont won cases before some courts, including a Florida administrative proceeding that found nothing wrong with the product. Other trials resulted in losses, including some for large amounts that reflected the runaway verdicts being rendered by the U.S. jury system in the 1990s. Ultimately, for business reasons, the company decided to stop selling Benlate® worldwide in 2001, even though there is still no credible scientific evidence demonstrating that Benlate® caused either the crop or health problems alleged in the lawsuits. This decision came as a disappointment to many growers, who continued to rely on Benlate® as a safe and effective product throughout the period of litigation.

http://heritage.dupont.com/floater/fl_benlate/floater.shtml

out for a while now.

Toxic Torts Litigation

Benlate

Motley Rice works on cases involving eyeless children whose mothers were exposed to a DuPont product, Benlate, during the early stages of pregnancy

http://www.motleyrice.com/toxic_torts/toxic_torts_benlate.html

The Maurice Blackburn Cashman class action

Maurice Blackburn Cashman commenced 6 cases in the New South Wales Supreme Court against the Australian subsidiary, Du Pont (Australia) Limited. The causes of action included negligence, breach of contract and breach of statutory provisions. The crops affected were orchids, carnations, capsicums, tomatoes and lettuces, all grown in greenhouses.

United States proceedings;

Similar cases against Du Pont US were successful in the USA where Du Pont paid billions of dollars in compensation and damages to US farmers. In these cases it was argued that the problem with Benlate was that the main component, Benomyl, broke down to form a substance toxic to plants, dibutlyurea. Furthermore, it was alleged that Du Pont and its contractors allowed cross-contamination of potent plant killers (herbicides) which were manufactured at the same facilities as Benlate.

The Australian proceedings handled by Maurice Blackburn Cashman were discontinued in March 2001 after a confidential settlement was reached in all 6 cases.

http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/ca_benlate.htm

And more details on your post AP

Court Erases Benlate Award Against DuPont

http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/f/1310/5-26-2004/20040526100011_050.html

Essentially, the RICO Act provides a stipulation for an award of triple damages if the plaintiff prevails. In this case the jury found for the plaintiff...after what I've read, the award was justified. Your post is right on target. Strings having been pulled. Rather pay the Bushes than the people who deserve it and are in need.

and federal courts.

Appeals courts have become the place where corporations get protections from justice.

from prosecution or ridiculously low judgment caps that couldn't buy a canary a light lunch after expenses are paid.