Adams, et al. v. U.S. & DuPont

NCLC urged the Ninth Circuit to hold that DuPont did not owe a legal duty to farmers whose crops were allegedly harmed by the company's herbicide, notwithstanding the existence of DuPont's product stewardship program. The district court ruled that in having a product stewardship program, DuPont necessarily had undertaken a legal duty. NCLC also argued that the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims are preempted by the EPA's approval of the product's label. NCLC warned that attaching a legal duty solely to the presence of a product stewardship initiative discourages voluntary business actions that benefit society.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a decision not for publication, denied all of DuPont’s grounds for appeal in a failure-to-warn lawsuit brought by farmers whose crops were allegedly harmed by the company’s herbicide. NCLC had argued that the mere existence of DuPont’s ‘environmental stewardship program’ – which includes initiatives to improve environmental sustainability – did not create a legal duty to the farmers, and that the claims were expressly preempted by FIFRA.

Amicus brief filed 10/4/10. Decided 9/8/11.