Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Sidran v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.
Citations: 925 So. 2d 1040; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18116; 2003 WL 22799515Docket: No. 3D01-2229
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 25, 2003; Florida; State Appellate Court
Appellants Claire J. and Phillip Sidran appeal a Final Judgment of no liability in favor of Appellees E.I. DuPont De Nemours and others, and the denial of their Motion for New Trial. The Sidrans operated an orchid nursery in Miami-Dade County, Florida, converting Mrs. Sidran's hobby into a business in 1973 and forming a corporation in 1992. They utilized fungicides, including Benlate WP in the early 1980s, later receiving Benlate 50 DF, which they used from 1988 until February 1991. Mrs. Sidran observed plant health decline in 1989, prompting her to send samples for testing. Reports questioned whether chemical application was the cause. In May 1991, DuPont recalled Benlate 50 DF and initiated a claims process. After unsuccessful settlement efforts, the Sidrans filed suit. The initial trial from March to May 1995 resulted in a jury verdict for the Sidrans, but a new trial was granted to the defendants. The retrial began in 2001, where defendants contested Benlate DF's defectiveness and proposed alternative causes for the Sidrans' plant loss, including potential groundwater contamination from nearby septic systems and misapplication of Kocide. Testing revealed mixed results for groundwater contamination at the Sidrans' property, with a notable positive result on November 5, 1991. A health department official indicated concerns about water safety for drinking but lacked knowledge regarding its impact on orchids. The court ultimately reversed the previous judgment in favor of the Sidrans. Harvey Kottke, Chief of Water and Wastewater Treatment at DERM, testified about groundwater contamination from upstream dry cleaners affecting the Suniland home wells, with contamination levels fluctuating daily. Kottke noted that the Sidrans’ contamination level was deemed safe for drinking. Environmental engineer Ricardo Fraxedas confirmed pulsations of contamination in the area from 1989 to 1991, with variable test results across properties, placing the Sidrans’ property in the contamination plume. Fraxedas, like Kottke, refrained from commenting on the toxicity of the water. The Defendants presented videotaped testimony from Ethyl Knapp, who reported similar orchid issues without using Benlate DF. Dr. Harold Coble testified that repeated exposure to contaminated water was more damaging to orchids than Benlate DF, but he had not tested the specific effects of dry cleaning contaminants on plants. The Plaintiffs sought to strike the defense regarding water contamination and requested a directed verdict, but the trial court found the causation a factual issue, leading to a jury verdict for the Defendants. The appeal raised concerns about the admissibility of evidence, particularly Dr. Coble's testimony, which the Sidrans claimed lacked factual or legal basis. The court agreed, stating that expert testimony must assist in understanding evidence or determining facts in issue, and Dr. Coble had no data supporting his claims regarding contaminants at 1.7 micrograms per liter. The court determined that admitting this testimony, while somewhat relevant, could mislead the jury due to the absence of a scientific basis linking contamination to orchid damage. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in allowing this evidence, resulting in the case being reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court also noted that questions posed to Dr. Coble improperly suggested facts to the jury about the contaminant levels affecting orchids.