Sanderson v. International Flavors & Fragrancies, Inc.
1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20689, 1996 WL 529274, 950 F. Supp. 981 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a toxic tort action, a plaintiff must produce competent expert testimony, based on reliable scientific methodology, establishing a reasonable medical probability that a specific defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury; general causation testimony about a class of products is insufficient.
Facts:
- Judith Sanderson had prior acute exposures to formaldehyde in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
- Between April 1994 and October 1995, Sanderson experienced over 16,000 exposures to various perfumes and colognes.
- Sanderson claimed these fragrance exposures caused or exacerbated injuries including sinus inflammation, toxic encephalopathy (brain damage), dysosmia (deranged sense of smell), small airways disease, and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).
- She could not identify the specific fragrance product involved in 70% of her alleged exposures.
- Out of the thousands of exposures, Sanderson identified being exposed to 'Boss' on two occasions and 'Drakkar Noir' (products linked to defendant IFF) on 20-30 occasions.
- The various fragrance products at issue were not fungible; they differed in chemical composition, containing different types and concentrations of aldehydes, which allegedly caused the harm.
Procedural Posture:
- Judith Sanderson filed a lawsuit in California state court against International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc. (IFF) and other fragrance manufacturers.
- Defendant IFF removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a federal trial court, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff could not prove causation.
- Defendants also filed a separate motion to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness testimony on causation under the standard set in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a plaintiff in a toxic tort case establish causation against individual manufacturers when her expert testimony opines that a general class of products caused her injuries but cannot, with reasonable medical probability, attribute those injuries to any specific defendant's product?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilson, District Judge
No. A plaintiff cannot establish causation against individual manufacturers when her expert testimony fails to link her injuries to any specific defendant's product with reasonable medical probability. First, under traditional causation principles, the plaintiff’s experts could not opine that any particular defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing her injuries. The experts admitted they could only link her injuries to fragrance products generally, which amounts to a 'mere possibility' rather than the required 'reasonable medical probability.' Second, California's burden-shifting doctrines are inapplicable. Alternative liability under Summers v. Tice fails because the plaintiff did not sue all potential tortfeasors. Market-share liability under Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories fails because the fragrance products are not fungible (chemically identical), and the plaintiff did not demonstrate that she had sued a substantial share of the market. The court declined to create a new 'modified' burden-shifting theory. As an alternative ground, the court also held the expert testimony inadmissible under Daubert, finding it failed both the reliability and 'fit' prongs of the test, as it was based on unsupported speculation rather than sound scientific methodology.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in toxic tort cases involving multiple potential causes. It strictly construes the requirements for burden-shifting theories like market-share and alternative liability, refusing to expand them to cases with non-fungible products and a vast, unidentified pool of potential tortfeasors. The opinion is a significant application of the Daubert standard, illustrating a court's gatekeeping role in excluding expert testimony that lacks a scientifically valid methodology, particularly when it relies on analogy and subjective belief rather than peer-reviewed research. This case effectively prevents plaintiffs from putting an entire industry on trial without specific, scientifically sound proof linking an individual defendant's product to the alleged harm.
