Ruling on federal preemption of state tort claim for crop damage [US SC] News
Ruling on federal preemption of state tort claim for crop damage [US SC]

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, Supreme Court of the United States, April 26, 2005 [ruling that federal labelling law did not necessarily prempt a state tort claim by a group of Texas farmers against the Dow chemical company for damage caused to their crops by a weed killer]. Excerpt:

In areas of traditional state regulation, we assume that a federal statute has not supplanted state law unless Congress has made such an intention " 'clear and manifest.' " New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645, 655 (1995) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230 (1947)); see also Medtronic, 518 U. S., at 485. Our reading is at once the only one that makes sense of each phrase in §136v(b) and the one favored by our canons of interpretation. The notion that FIFRA tort claims that parallel FIFRA's misbranding requirements is particularly dubious given that just five years ago the United States advocated the interpretation that we adopt today.

The long history of tort litigation against manufacturers of poisonous substances adds force to the basic presumption against pre-emption. If Congress had intended to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compensation, it surely would have expressed that intent more clearly. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 251 (1984). Moreover, this history emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.

Read the full opinion [PDF]. Reported in JURIST's Paper Chase here.