Clifford v. Crop Production Services, Inc.
627 F.3d 268
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Clifford farmed seed corn under a Monsanto contract; Monsanto directed planting of multiple fields in 2007.
- Monsanto informed Clifford there were no restrictions on herbicides despite corn’s sensitivity to certain herbicides.
- CPS recommended and mixed a custom herbicide blend containing Steadfast (sulfonylurea) and Callisto (pigment inhibitor).
- Clifford received four batches from CPS over three days; CPS used a bulk-tank system and manual additions; blend was sprayed on Clifford’s fields.
- Within a week, Clifford observed corn damage; Monsanto-directed destruction occurred on one field and part of another.
- Glyphosate was later detected in the damaged corn (trace amount), prompting belief that CPS mixed Roundup into the blend, leading to a negligence suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Geneser’s testimony could support causation without Rule 26 disclosure | Clifford contends Geneser’s causation testimony is lay. | CPS argues Geneser is an expert; disclosure required. | Waived; even if considered, summary judgment upheld. |
| Whether Illinois duty and breach can be proven without expert testimony | Presence of glyphosate suffices to show breach/duty. | Requires evidence of specific precaution and breach. | No triable issue; no evidence of breach or proper precaution. |
| Whether the source of glyphosate was CPS’s blend or other sources | Glyphosate likely came from CPS’s blend. | Glyphosate could come from tank, equipment, or drift; CPS not proven source. | Insufficient proof CPS was the source; res ipsa not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weigel v. Target Stores, 122 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 1997) (speculation not precluded from summary judgment when unsupported)
- Torrez v. TGI Friday's, Inc., 509 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2007) (balancing cost of precautions against risk in Illinois negligence)
- Aguirre v. Turner Constr. Co., 582 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2009) (res ipsa loquitur applicability when obvious negligence)
- Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am., Inc., 469 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2006) (illustrates res ipsa criteria and obviousness of negligence)
- Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), 619 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard for de novo review of summary-judgment grant)