Wayne Charles Oken v. The Monsanto Co.

371 F.3d 1312, 58 ERC (BNA) 1683, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11013, 2004 WL 1237063
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJune 4, 2004
Docket02-15943
StatusPublished

This text of 371 F.3d 1312 (Wayne Charles Oken v. The Monsanto Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wayne Charles Oken v. The Monsanto Co., 371 F.3d 1312, 58 ERC (BNA) 1683, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11013, 2004 WL 1237063 (11th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

I.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y (“FIFRA”) establishes a comprehensive regulatory scheme for pesticides. Manufacturers of pesticides must obtain Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) approval of their products and the warning labels accompanying them, which instruct consumers on how to use the product safely. 7 U.S.C. §§ 136a(a), 136a(c)(l)(C). FIFRA contains an express preemption provision: States “shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required” by FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b).

In Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F.2d 516, 517, 520 (11th Cir.1993) (Papas II), a damages action for personal injuries sustained “due to exposure to pesticides manufactured by [codefendant] Zoecon,” we held that “FIFRA expressly pre-empts state common law actions against manufacturers of EPA-registered pesticides to the extent that such actions are predicated on claims of inadequate labeling or packaging.” Such preemption extended to plaintiffs claims based on “negligence, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty,” because “[e]ach of these claims was, in whole or in part, a claim of inadequate labeling for alleged dangers arising from exposure to the pesticides.” Id. at 517. We therefore affirmed the district court’s summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs claims.

*1314 II.

The case before us mirrors Papas II. Wayne Charles Oken purchased two bags of Ortho Dursban Lawn & Garden Insect Control (“Dursban”) from Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”). The Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) manufactured the Dursban, and Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) manufactured the product’s active ingredient. A warning label approved by EPA, and annexed to this opinion as an Appendix, was attached to the bags Oken purchased.

Oken read the warning label and, using a two-wheeled spreader, spread both bags, one at a time, on his lawn to control ants. As he spread the Dursban, he was exposed 1 to a “mist of powder [that] arose.” 2 He soon suffered a reaction, which required extensive hospitalization and treatment.

The day before the statute of limitations would have barred this action, Oken brought this action for money damages against Dow, Monsanto and Home Depot 3 in a Florida circuit court. 4 His complaint sounded in negligence and strict liability. It alleged that Dow and Monsanto were negligent in designing and manufacturing the Dursban and in composing the warning label attached to the bags, Home Depot was negligent in selling an unreasonably dangerous product, and all three defendants were strictly liable for dispensing an unreasonably dangerous product.

The defendants removed the case to federal district court, and in their answers to the complaint, alleged that FIFRA preempted each of Oken’s claims. Following some discovery, they moved the district court for summary judgment. The court granted their motion, concluding that the case was indistinguishable from, and controlled by, Papas II. 5 Oken now appeals.

III.

The adequacy of the Dursban warning label is at the heart of this case. Although Oken’s complaint sounds in negligence and strict liability, we cannot ignore the critical causation element of each of these torts. For his negligence claims, Oken must show that the defendants’ alleged negligence caused his injuries. For his strict liability claims, he must show that the alleged defects in Dursban caused his injuries. Oken cannot escape, however, that his injuries were caused, at least in part, by the alleged inadequacy of the label. If the label had adequately warned him of the dangers of Dursban, he contends, he would not have used the product and would not have been injured. As Papas II instructs, because all of Oken’s claims are based at least in part on inade *1315 quate labeling, they are all preempted by FIFRA. 985 F.2d at 517.

Oken asks that we overrule Papas II. He argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996), requires that we reevaluate Papas II and find that state-law causes of action based on inadequate warnings are not preempted by FIFRA. However, subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Medtronic, we reaffirmed Papas II in Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. Olin Corp., 313 F.3d 1307, 1308 (11th Cir.2002). Because a panel of this court is not free to reconsider an issue decided by a prior panel, United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (11th Cir.1998) (en banc), we are bound by our decision in Lowe’s, and must adhere to Papas II.

AFFIRMED.

APPENDIX

ORTHO(R)

Dursban(R) Lawn & Garden Insect Control

FLEA AND TICK CONTROL (Outdoors) SOIL INSECTS — -European Crane Fly/Leather Jacket (larvae) and White Grubs.

HOME INVADING PESTS (Outside)— Ants, Brown Dog Ticks, Cockroaches, Clover Mites, Crickets, Earwigs, Fleas, Millipedes, Sowbugs (Pillbugs), Silverfish, Spiders (including Black Widow Spiders).

HOME LAWNS — Ants, Chinch Bugs, Cutworms, Fall Armyworms, Earwigs, Crickets, Brown Dog Ticks, Fleas, Leaf-hoppers, Lawn Moths (Sod Webworms), Chiggers, Clover Mites, Grasshoppers, Spittlebugs, Sowbugs (Pillbugs). DIRECTIONS FOR USE It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.

READ ENTIRE LABEL. USE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LABEL PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS AND DIRECTIONS.

FLEA AND TICK CONTROL (OUTDOORS)

Treat once a month beginning when pests first appear in late spring (May — June) and continue until late summer (September — October). Eliminating weeds around the home and mowing lawns frequently reduces hiding places. Dogs, cats, their kennel or bedding area should also be treated with a registered product such as ORTHO Pet Flea & Tick Spray. In addition, if fleas or ticks are indoors on carpets or pet resting areas, use a product such as FLEA-B-GON(R) Flea & Tick Killer or ORTHO Home Pest Insect Control.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. v. Olin Corp.
313 F.3d 1307 (Eleventh Circuit, 2002)
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
518 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 1996)
United States v. William O. Steele, Cross-Appellee
147 F.3d 1316 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
Papas v. Upjohn Co.
985 F.2d 516 (Eleventh Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
371 F.3d 1312, 58 ERC (BNA) 1683, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 11013, 2004 WL 1237063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wayne-charles-oken-v-the-monsanto-co-ca11-2004.