Wednesday, August 15,
2001
Court OKs lawsuits over
home bug spray
Two babies reported to have become sick by exposure to EPA-approved pesticides
Bob
Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Pesticide companies can be sued for making and selling home bug sprays that
allegedly sickened children, a state appellate court ruled yesterday.
A Court of Appeal panel in Los Angeles rejected arguments by Dow Chemical and
other manufacturers that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's approval of
the pesticides for residential use barred damage suits under state law.
The court said that EPA-approved warning labels could not be challenged but
that a jury could still decide whether a chemical's dangers to human health
outweighed its benefits.
"We believe that the burden of the cost of serious injury actually
caused by pesticides should . . . be borne by the pesticide manufacturers and
distributors rather than the innocent consumers," wrote Justice Michael
Nott. He noted, however, that the family had not yet proved the causes of the
illnesses.
"This industry has been fairly well insulated from liability," said
Raphael Metzger, attorney for a San Fernando Valley family who claimed ant spray
caused brain damage to their unborn child and sickened their baby daughter.
"This case is a significant inroad to obtaining redress for people who have
pesticide-induced injuries."
Calls to attorneys for Dow Chemical and FMC Corp., another manufacturer in
the case, were not immediately returned.
According to the suit, Chad and Michelle Arnold's landlord had their home and
yard sprayed several times in 1997 to get rid of an infestation of ants. The
pest control company used Dursban, Dragnet and Baygon, all EPA-approved for home
use, though the EPA withdrew its approval of Dursban for home and school use
last year.
The Arnolds said their daughter Alexa, who was born six months after the
spraying started, had suffered a stroke in her mother's womb, causing mental
retardation and partial paralysis. Her sister Ashley, 18 months old when the
spraying began, suffered pancreatitis and hepatitis and was hospitalized several
times, the suit said.
A Superior Court judge dismissed the suit, citing the EPA's approval of each
product, but was overruled by the appellate court, which said the case should go
to trial. The court said a state Supreme Court ruling last year, in a suit by
walnut growers, established that federal approval protected pesticide companies
against claims that warning labels were inadequate, but not against other claims
of dangers or defects.
The Arnolds were not arguing that the pesticides' labels should be improved,
but were instead alleging that, because of their contents, "they cannot
safely be used in the home," the appellate court said.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/08/15/MN182665.DTL
|