Supreme Court Rejects Farmers' Petition Regarding Alleged Pesticide Damage (October 3, 2023, 11:59 AM EDT) -- WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 2 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by a group of Texas farmers who said they were denied due process by the Texas Supreme Court, which found in favor of a chemical company accused of negligently applying pesticides that damaged crops. O (Robert Cox, et al. v. Helena Chemical Co., No. 23-176, U.S. Sup.) Independent Contractors + In 2015, Helena Chemical Co. arranged for the aerial application of its herbicide Sendero at the Spade Ranch in Texas. Helena claims that Sendero is unique because it contains two chemicals, clopyralid and aminopyralid, while other herbicides contain only clopyralid. The pilots were independent contractors licensed by the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) to perform aerial applications. Several weeks later, Cox and a group of other farmers complained of damages to their cotton fields to the TDA. The farmers alleged that drifting Sendero from the aerial application damaged 111 cotton fields ranging from less than two miles to 25 miles away from the ranch. 503The farmers sued Helena, Dow Chemical Co., Dow AgroSciences LLC, Heli AG LLC and the independent pilots in the Mitchell County, Texas, 32nd District Court. The farmers brought claims of negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, trespass, mental anguish and malicious conduct. Helena was the only remaining defendant at the time of the final judgment. The farmers also requested punitive damages. The trial court granted Helena's motions for summary judgment on the claims of mental anguish, gross negligence, malicious conduct and punitive damages. The court also granted O Helena's motion to strike the opinions of the farmers' six experts on the element of causation and Helena's no-evidence motion for summary judgment on causation. Judgment was rendered, and the farmers were awarded nothing on their claims. about:blank 1/4 + 10/10/23, 8:19 PM about:blank Appellate Ruling The farmers appealed to the 11th District Court of Appeals, which reversed in part and affirmed in part, finding in October 2020 that the trial court erred in striking some of the farmers' experts' opinions. On the motion for no-evidence summary judgment, the panel found that the farmers, through their experts' opinions, offered enough evidence to raise an issue of fact Sofarmers, through their experts\" opinions, offered enough evidence to raise an issue of fact related to the element of causation. The panel aiso disagreed with Helena's contention that causation must be decided for each individuai eld. The farmers' appeal on this issue was thus sustained . The panei then addressed the remaining summary judgment issues, finding that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages because the farmers failed to establish that Helena, its employees or independent contractors acted with malice or gross negligence, Dn mental anguish, the panel found that the trial court did not err in granting Helena summary judgment because the farmers failed to present any evidence that Helena or the pilots willfully and deliberately caused the damage to the crops. Lastly, the panei reversed the judgment of the trial court's rendering of a take-nothing judgment against the farmers. Lay Opinions Helena petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review, contending that the appeilate court erred in reversing the no-evidence summary judgment and the order granting Helena's motions to strike the farmers' experts\" opinion. Review was granted May 22, 2022, Siding with the chemical company, the Texas Supreme Court said the \"lay opinions of the Q i_l i_r Siding with the chemical company, the Texas Supreme Court said the "lay opinions of the farmers themselves about the source of their crop failure" cannot provide sufficient causation evidence to survive summary judgment. "Determining whether a particular application of aerial herbicide substantially contributed to the failure of crops miles away requires knowledge and analysis of scientific matters beyond the competence of laymen," the Texas Supreme Court ruled. The Texas Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs were required to "come forward with reliable evidence of causation for any area for which they seek recovery" and that in the instant suit, the evidence presented was insufficient to defeat summary judgment in favor of Helena. The expert testimony for the farmers "essentially expressed the view that aerial drift must have occurred about:blank 2/4 + 10/10/23, 8:19 PM about:blank here because of the widespread damage alleged - even though the damage pattern was not consistent with typical drift patterns," according to the Texas Supreme Court. Lastly, the Texas Supreme Court observed that the dosage and exposure necessary to "substantially contribute" to reduced crop yields remains unestablished, with two of the plaintiffs' own experts conceding that even cotton plants that show signs of herbicide damage can go on to produce a normal yield. "It is no answer here to say that any exposure to Sendero can harm cotton plants." the Texas Supreme Court wrote. On March 20. the farmers moved for rehearing.cotton plants,\" the Texas Supreme Court wrote. On March 20, the farmers moved for rehearing, which was denied. US. Supreme Court On Aug. 1, the farmers filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that \"the Supreme Court of Texas deprived the petitioners of due process, nullified federal environmental safety regulations . . . and usurped the legislative role, while casting a pall over the ideal ofjudiciai impartiality." The farmers asserted that the evidence presented showed that Sendero damaged their crops and that no plausible alternative source of the damage existed. Therefore, the exclusion of their testimony relating to causation was a denial of due process, they argued. "Petitioners were denied due process of law by the blanket exclusion of their testimony and refusal to consider expert opinions founded on experience and investigation, amounting to a loss of the right to be heard," the farmers contended. EPA Regulations Additionally, the farmers said the Texas Supreme Court \"nullified" the authority of the EPA by rejecting the agency's determinations that Sendero causes damage to cotton plants. The l_l ._. rejecting the agency's determinations that Sendero causes damage to cotton plants. The petitioners based their argument on labels placed on Sendero that warn against allowing the product to come into contact with a variety of crops, including cotton. In their petition, the farmers also asked the court "Whether the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas should have recused himself from deciding the case in light of his long history of financial dealings with the same firm that represents the respondent chemical company, and following a defense provided by that firm against charges of judicial misconduct." Helena waived its right to file a response. The denial of the petition was announced in an order about:blank 3/4 + 10/10/23, 8:19 PM about:blank list. Counsel Helena is represented by Robert L. Soza Jr., Stephen A. Calhoun and Amanda N. Crouch in San Antonio, Jennifer Caughey in Houston and Danica L. Milos in Austin, all of Jackson Walker LLP. O The farmers are represented by Don C. Burns and Cody McCade of the Law Officers of Burns & So3 M.P-L