Burton v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Strict Products Liability
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 20-1774 et al. Cons.
Decision Date: 
April 15, 2021
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded

Defendants-manufacturers of white lead carbonate used in paint during 1900s were entitled either to new trial or judgment as matter of law in plaintiffs' negligence and strict products liability claims that alleged that they incurred brain damage and other injuries arising out of their ingestion of white lead carbonate as young children. While jury found in favor of plaintiffs on both claims and awarded them $2 million each, Dist. Ct. abused its discretion when applying risk-contribution theory, by allowing plaintiffs to hold defendants liable in their capacities as manufacturers of finished paint products that contained white lead carbonate obtained from other manufacturers, and not just in their capacity as manufacturers of white lead carbonate, where Wisc. Supreme Ct. expressly limited risk-contribution theory to manufacturers of white lead carbonate. Also, plaintiffs could not prevail in their negligent failure-to-warn claims, where: (1) sole basis of said claim was defendants' failure to warn about danger of white lead carbonate; (2) said failure to warn constituted alleged product defect; (3) Dist. Ct. had previously granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs' negligent failure to warn claims; and (4) instant claims of negligence without product defect improperly allowed jury to find that defendants were negligent in absence of any actual negligence. Too, Dist. Ct. erred in finding that defendants had duty to warn for purposes of plaintiffs' strict products liability claim, after ruling on summary judgment that defendants had no duty to warn plaintiffs on their negligence claims. Finally, Dist. Ct. erred in admitting expert's testimony that quantified plaintiffs' losses in their IQs as result of ingesting white lead carbonate, where expert did not personally evaluate plaintiffs' IQs nor had any evidence of their baseline IQs.