C.W. v. Textron

In action seeking recovery based on plaintiff-children’s exposure to vinyl cloride that had seeped into plaintiffs’ underground drinking water, Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s action after granting defendant’s motion in limine to exclude all three of plaintiff’s proposed expert witnesses, who claimed existence of causal link between seepage of vinyl cloride and plaintiffs’ illnesses. Dist. Ct. could properly find that methodologies used by plaintiff’s experts were unreliable, where: (1) plaintiffs’ experts improperly linked plaintiffs’ illnesses on bare fact that plaintiffs were exposed to vinyl cloride at levels that exceeded applicable regulations; (2) articles relied upon by experts concerned levels of vinyl cloride that were greater than levels at issue in instant case; and (3) no expert established as initial matter why vinyl cloride should have been considered as possible cause of plaintiffs’ illnesses. Fact that there were no available studies that had examined impact of vinyl cloride on children did not require different result.