HELENA, Mont. - The Montana State Supreme Court has made it easier for Montanans to sue makers of pesticides and herbicides for failing to properly warn of the dangers they could pose, according to an Associated Press news release printed in the Billings Gazette.
In a 6-1 ruling Dec. 28, the court said federal law that forbids states to impose their own requirements for pesticide labeling does not block lawsuits claiming that such labels fail to provide adequate warnings.
Legal action and resulting damage awards in state courts may put pressure on pesticide manufacturers to change their warning labels, but that is not the same as states ordering companies to alter their labels, the justices said.
The decision overturned a three-year-old ruling by the high court holding that suits accusing pesticide makers of failing to properly warn of their products’ danger are pre-empted by federal law.
The court opinion revived a lawsuit filed by four former employees of a Helena business against the makers of a pesticide that was applied in their offices over a three-year period. The women developed health problems and were forced to quit on advice of their doctors.
They sued West Mont Home Health Services Inc. and West Montana Home Management Services Inc., claiming they failed to provide a safe workplace and to warn them of the health risks posed by the poison. They sued Orkin Extermination Co. Inc., which applied the pesticide and DowElanco, the manufacturer of the pesticide.
District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock, relying on the Montana State Supreme Court’s 1997 ruling in a similar case, dismissed the lawsuit. He concluded that all of the claims were related to the adequacy of the warning labels applied to the pesticide and federal law bars states from imposing requirements on such labeling.
The court reversed Sherlock’s decision because since the court’s 1997 ruling cited by Sherlock, the federal government has acknowledged that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act does not block legal action in state courts that challenge the labeling of such chemicals.
The justices embraced that notion, saying the prohibition on states imposing labeling “requirements” does not prevent lawsuits or judgments in state courts that encourage labeling changes.
“While a damage award may prompt a pesticide manufacturer to seek the (Environmental Protection Agency’s) approval for a change in labeling, it does not directly command such a change,” Justice James Nelson wrote.
He also said the legislative history of the federal pesticide law does not indicate that Congress wanted it to block lawsuits related to warning labels.
Source: The Billings Gazette - www.billingsgazette.com.