Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

FIFRA Preempts State Law Causes of Action Based
on Labeling or Failure to Warn

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Restrepo v. Rockland Corp., 38 A.D.3d 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court court's order with costs. The plaintiff, the wife of the decedent, asserted claims against Rockland Corporation for negligent design and manufacture. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) because they were based on the pesticide's labeling. The court held that FIFRA only preempted state law causes of action based on labeling or failure to warn; therefore, the plaintiff's claims were not preempted.

Background

The decedent worked as a head porter for Solow Management, and the plaintiff, his wife, alleged the decedent told her a few weeks before he died that he used weed and grass killer while working for Solow and identified the defendant's label on the Rockland Weed and Grass Killer. Brief of Plaintiff at *7, Restrepo v. Rockland Corp., 38 A.D.3d 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). After using the product, the defendant developed a rash on his face and swollen ears, and began getting tired and short of breath. Id. Blood work later preformed on the decedent showed that he had developed respiratory infections. Id. at *8. The plaintiff's expert found that the active ingredient in the pesticide was responsible for the decedent's death. Id. Thereafter, the plaintiff sued the defendant and the defendant motioned for summary judgment. Restrepo, 38 A.D.3d at 743. The trial court denied the defendant's motion, and the defendant appealed. Id.

Arguments

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were based on the pesticide's label, and were therefore preempted by FIFRA. See id. The defendant claimed that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (JNOV). Id. at 743. Additionally, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's negligent design or manufacture claims. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The instant court held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's causes of action based on negligent design or manufacture because "FIFRA only preempts state law causes of action based on inadequate labeling or a failure to warn." Id. FIFRA does not preempt state actions based on negligent design or manufacture. Id. In addressing the defendant's motion for JNOV, the court held that because "the defendant never put forth any proof either that the decedent did not use the product, or that the product did not proximately cause his illness or death . . . it failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

The case was decided on March 20, 2007.