Walsh v. BASF Corp.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
234 A.3d 446 (2020)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Thomas Walsh, a golf-course groundskeeper, died of leukemia. Walsh’s estate (plaintiff) filed a wrongful-death action against multiple pesticide manufacturers, including BASF Corporation (defendants), alleging that the manufacturer’s pesticides caused Walsh’s disease. The estate intended to rely on testimony from multiple experts who would attest that Walsh’s leukemia could be attributed to the pesticides. The experts’ methodology relied in part on animal studies. Without referencing any scientific authority or the expert deposition testimony in the record, the trial court unilaterally concluded that animal studies, test-tube studies, and studies that used significant limiting language regarding the applicability of their results were scientifically unacceptable. Because the court deemed such methodologies not to be generally accepted in the scientific community, it held that expert testimony based on such methodologies was inadmissible under the Frye test. The court then granted summary judgment in the manufacturers’ favor. The estate appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Donohue, J.)
Concurrence (Wecht, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 911,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 997 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
