Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

FIFRA Preempts State Common Law Failure-to-Warn Claims

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 650 N.W.2d 744 (Neb. 2002), the Supreme Court of Nebraska reversed and remanded the district court's decision, which entered judgment on the jury verdict for a city employee. The employee claimed that he sustained injuries from being exposed to an herbicide, and the manufacturer opted to bypass the court of appeals and appealed to the instant court. The Supreme Court of Nebraska held that the plaintiffs' claims were based on herbicide labeling; therefore, the claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). It remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case.

Background

On April 9, 1993, Harold Eyl spent the day hauling pea rock to a city playground as an employee of Wisner City. Id. at 746. Earlier in the day, Daniel Bode, also employed by city, sprayed the playground area with Pramitol, an herbicide produced by Ciba-Geigy Corp., to prevent weeds. Id. at 747. On April 11, 1993, Eyl's feet were red and sore, so he set up an appointment with his physician for two days later. Id. By April 13, 1993, his feet and ankles were in swollen, hot, and covered with ulcers. Id. As a result of the injuries sustained to his feet, Eyl became permanently disabled. Id.

Eyl sued Ciba-Geigy in Cuming County District Court. Id. Following the presentation of Eyl's evidence, and again after Ciba-Geigy presented its evidence, Ciba-Geigy moved for a directed verdict, asserting that Eyl's claims were preempted by FIFRA because they were labeling-based state common law failure-to-warn claims. Id. The court overruled both motions because "it did not view the case as a labeling-based claim." Id. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Eyl on all claims and awarded damages. Id. at 748. Thereafter, Ciba-Geigy successfully petitioned to bypass the court of appeals and appealed to the instant court. Id.

Arguments

On appeal, Ciba-Geigy argued Eyl's claims were labeling-based, and therefore were preempted by FIFRA. Id. at 746.

Eyl argued that his claims were not preempted by FIFRA, and he encouraged the court to overrule Ackles v. Luttrell, 561 N.W.2d 573 (1997). Id. Furthermore, Eyl argued "that because he was a bystander who should have been warned that a substance had been applied, his claims [were] not labeling based and that FIFRA [did] not apply." Id.

Analysis and Holdings

In Ackles, the instant court held "that FIFRA preempted common-law failure-to-warn claims." Id. at 752. The court acknowledged that since Ackles, "a majority of courts continue[d] to hold that FIFRA preempt[ed] labeling-based failure-to-warn claims." Id. After reviewing a few decisions holding to the contrary, the court stated that it was unwilling to overrule its prior decision in Ackles or the holding of a majority of courts, and reasserted that FIFRA preempts state common law failure-to-warn claims. Id.

The case was decided on September 6, 2002.