The makers of pesticides and weedkillers can be sued and forced to pay damages if their products cause harm, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, rejecting the view of the Bush administration and reversing a series of lower courts.

-snip-

Wednesday's ruling restores the law to what it had been before the 1990s.

Interesting bias in reporting. Since this Bush administration has only been in place since 2000, what administration apparently was in favor of maintaining the over-turned interpretation for the prior eight years. I saw no mention about that curiosity. I sense a liberal press cheap-shot.

Additionally, if some feel that government regulation is essential, then why don't their rulings carry any weight. I don't see how the suppliers and manufacturers of pesticides approved for use on crops should be held culpable for crop damages or personal injury unless it can be proven that they provided false information to the government regulatory agency during the approval process. At some point, responsibility has to pass from one party to the next in regard to the safe and appropriate use of a product, especially if the product has met the muster of government regulatory approval.

This might help clarify your first comment, Monte. Remember William J. Clinton served from 1993 -2001.

"The Bush administration weighed in the case on the side of Dow, officially reversing the position of the Clinton administration (see Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Service, Bayer Corp, et al.). The Justice Department brief filed before the high court in late November, 2004 was designed to protect pesticide manufacturers when their products cause harm. Advocates cite that this position is contradictory to the administration's public support of states' rights."

Nothing about the rule-making process is intended to grant immunity from liability. Plus industry has a huge role in writing regulations it likes and obstructing regulations it doesn't. So giving away people's rights to seek compensation from corporations would be a dereliction of duty by the government.

Althea,

According to comment I referenced from the original post, the current legal position had been in force since the 1990's. The current administration was not in place at any point in the 1990's. If what you posted is true about the timing of the change, then my position that it was liberal press cheapshot still stands. It was not an accurate statement in any account.

Bruce,

Why should people have a right to prosecute a manufacturer of a product if they misused or misapplied their product against all the warnings and instructions on the label? When you remove the requirement of personal responsibility from the individual, then the incentive to follow instructions and warnings becomes even less of an imperative to the individual who now has nothing to lose and all kinds of potential gain via litigation.

Okay Monte, here's the rest of the article from the LA Times. The current adminsitration has held firm to the narrow intertpretation from the early '90's.

In re to you question to Bruce, Strongarm was advertised as being effective in all areas where peanuts were grown. Only after farmers in areas where the soil is very alkaline suffered crop failure, Dow changed the label. The farmers did use as directed.

During most of the 20th century, Americans who were hurt or killed by toxic chemicals could sue the maker of the product in state court. But more recently, lawyers for the chemical industry convinced courts in much of the nation, including California, that the federal law regulating the pesticides barred such lawsuits in state courts. Four years ago, the Bush administration adopted this pro\-industry position, saying that once a pesticide or weedkiller had won EPA approval, it had a federal shield against being sued even if the product did not work as advertised. The case of 29 Texas peanut farmers illustrated the issue. Five years ago, they were persuaded by agents of Dow Chemical Co. to try Strongarm, a powerful, newly approved weedkiller. The farmers say Strongarm killed not just their weeds, but also their peanut plants. "They just plain withered away," said Ronnie Love, 63, who said he applied Strongarm to 150 acres when he seeded his fields that spring. Despite a summer of heavy watering, the peanut plants were stunted and failed to produce a crop, he said. Love and the other farmers say Dow reneged on a promise to compensate them for millions of dollars in crop losses. They notified the company that they intended to sue in a Texas court under the terms of the state's consumer protection law, which allows suits for products that are defective or are deceptively marketed. But before they could file their claims, lawyers for Dow went to a U.S. district court in Lubbock and asserted it was shielded from such suits. A federal judge agreed with Dow and dismissed the farmers' suit. And the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed as well, saying federal law that regulates pesticides preempts or bars lawsuits in a state court. The California Supreme Court handed down a similar ruling five years ago. But the Supreme Court took up the case of the peanut farmers Bates vs. Dow AgroSciences and ruled Wednesday that the lower courts were wrong to throw out such claims. Justice John Paul Stevens noted that the EPA did not test products to see if they were effective. It simply relies on information supplied by the manufacturer. After the peanut crops in Texas failed, Dow changed Strongarm's product label to say the weedkiller should not be used in regions with high\-alkaline soils, which are common in Texas and Oklahoma. The company did not acknowledge liability for the earlier damage. Stevens described the 1972 law as an effort by Congress to impose greater regulation on "poisonous substances." Converting it into a shield against lawsuits would "create not only financial risks for consumers, but risks that affect their safety and environment as well," he said. "This is a huge win for farmers, and I think it will have a big impact in the agriculture industry," said David C. Frederick, the Washington lawyer who represented the peanut farmers. "Pesticide makers and farmers have to work together. And if something goes wrong with a pesticide, the farmers deserve to be compensated. Now the courthouse door is open to them again after being closed for the past 15 years." Patti Goldman, a lawyer in Seattle for the environmental group Earthjustice, said the ruling would help consumers and workers harmed by pesticides. She and other lawyers cited cases of children sickened by pesticides that had drifted from fields into residential areas and that of a young man who died after riding a horse that had been sprayed with a pesticide. Recently, such lawsuits had been dismissed prior to a trial. Wednesday's ruling does not mean the plaintiffs will always win, the lawyers said, noting that they would have to prove the product was defectively made or inadequately tested to prevail in court. "This just means that people will be allowed to sue for compensation when they are harmed by a pesticide," Goldman said. "The court recognized that these \[EPA\-approved\] labels are written by the manufacturers." The Bush administration, the chemical industry and other business groups joined the case on the side of Dow Chemical Co., arguing that the court should erect a barrier to such lawsuits. "This is a complete loss and a big disappointment," said Steve Bokat, general counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Our concern is that this gives an opening for the plaintiffs' bar to bring more tort claims against large companies." In his opinion, Stevens pointed out that the Clinton administration believed that the federal pesticide registration law did not shield manufacturers from all lawsuits. The Bush administration reversed course in 2001 and said the law as originally written did block such claims. Stevens called the new interpretation "particularly dubious" and not entitled to much deference from the high court. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined the court's opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented in part, criticizing the court for "tipping the scales in favor of the states and against the federal government" by allowing lawsuits in state courts. Thomas said most of the legal claims raised by the peanut farmers should have been thrown out of court. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-scotus28apr28,1,6944888.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

To paraphrase Monte; when you remove the liability from the corporation, you remove the incentive to provide a safe product with adequate instructions and warnings.

In my opinion, I should be able to sue Monsanto if a neighbor damages any of my plants by spraying Roundup carelessly. Monsanto's advertising encourages it, no matter what Monsanto says in microscopic print on the label.

If such suits were enough of a nuisance to Monsanto, the advertising would change. With no need for regulation by the EPA, FTC, or FCC. That's small government in operation.

The government either needs to strictly regulate corporations or to get out of the way and let people sue them. I'm torn about which is the best solution because corporations can dominate the regulatory process and can win court cases by attrition. Like just about everything else, I guess we just have to forget about political theory and just muddle through as best as we can.

I once heard that the USA is the only country which recieves most of its income through law suits! That seems outrageous! What monetary value can ones watershed, oxygenshed, soilshed, environment be worth? I guess how much money would it take to reverse the situation and/ or compensate for damages done? I dont think there is enough lawyers to accomplish what you are suggesting Bruce, or perhaps I am not undestanding what just muddle through means. :) I dont see a mass change in paradigm shifts anytime soon in great numbers to make a difference or change. For now we are stuck with what our forefathers have given us. Oh...is that what you mean to just muddle through as best we can:) love it!

Productivity is not measured by how many thig-a-ma-gigs are made but by the volume and speed by which capital and promissory instruments move. Lawsuits are just another form of movement.