H on. Lynn S. A d el m an, ofthe Eas t er n Di s t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, 1 s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1377 J OHN C. C LIFFO RD , III, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C R OP P R ODUCT I ON S ERVICES, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 08- C- 02094

—David G . Bernth al, Magis trate Judge

.

____________ A RG UE D O CT OB ER 18, 2010

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 29, 2010

____________ Befo re P OSNERan d W OO D , C ircu it Judges , a nd A DE LMA N , D i s t r i ctJudg e . 1 A DE LMA N , D i s t r i ctJudg e . I n thi s negl i genc e case i nvol vi ng I l l ino i s s ub s t a nti v e l a w , the dist ri ct c ourtgr anted the defe nd ant’ s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent a fter excludi ngthe pl aint i ff’ s ex per t wi tn es s an d c o nc l udi ng that, witho ut exper t t est i m ony, the pla i nti ff’ s cl aim f ai l ed2 N o. 10

- 1377

as a m att ero flaw. T he p l ai nti ffap peal s both the excl usi on of hi s expert w i tness and the dist ri ct cour t’ s gr an t of s u mma r y j u d g me n t
. We a ffi r m.

I. Th e p l a i nt i ffb e l o w a nd a pp e l l a nthe r e , J o hnC. Cl i ff o r d, III, fa r m ed se ed co rn u n d er a c on tr ac t w ith M on sa n to . In 20 07, a t M o ns an to ’ s di r ection, Cl i ff o r d pl an te d m al e an d f emal e st r ains o f se ed co r n o n thr ee di ff er en t fi el ds. The m al e s tr ai ns w er e label ed as bei ng sensi ti ve to two types of h erb icid es : s u lfon ylu re as an d p igm en t in h ibit or s. Inea rly J une, Cl i ff or d noti ced w eeds in the cor n and aske d M onsant o about potenti alherbi ci des he coul d use to contr olthe w eeds. Despi te the c or n’s se nsi ti vi ty to sul f onylurea s a nd pi gm ent inhibi tor s, a M onsant o r epr es en ta ti ve t o l d Cl i ff o r d tha t th er e wer e no r es tr i ct i o ns o n the ty pes o fhe rbi ci des tha t co ul d b e a ppl i ed t o the c o r n. Cli ff or d then co nt ac ted a supp l i ero fherbi ci des, appel l ee Crop Pro du cti ons Se rv i ces, I nc. ( “CPS”) , and a ske d i t t o se nd a r epr es en ta ti ve t o hi s f ar m in ord er t o v i ew the wee ds. A CPS r epr es en ta ti ve v i ewe d the w ee ds an d r e c o mm e nd e d tha t Cl i ff o r d us e a c us t o m b l e nd o f herbi cid es co n ta in in g St eadf ast, a brand

- nam e s ulfonylurea herbi ci de, a n d C al l i sto , a bra nd

- nam e pi gm ent- i nhibi tor herbi ci de. F o l l o wi ngCPS ’ s r ec o m m en dat i o n, Cl i ff o r d o r der ed f o ur batche s o fthe custo m herbi ci de bl end, wh i ch CPS m i xed and dispensed t o Cli ff or d on three separat e d ays . Forea ch batch, CP S m i xed the bl end “on dem and” an d d i spensed it to C li ff o r d i n a t an ktha t CPS ha d l o an ed hi m f o r theN o. 10

- 1377 3

sea son. To m i x the bl end, C PS used a syst em thatco nsi ste d of a lar ge m i xi ng ta nk co nnected by hos es to bul k b i ns o f va r i o us a g r i cu ltur alpr o duct s, i nc l udi nghe rbi ci des

. CPS em p loyees use d a c om p ut erized m ech an ism to m easu re pr o duct s f r o m the bul kbi ns a nd c o nv eythe m t o the mix i ng tank. A ny pro du cts not sto re d in the bul k bi ns w er e a dd ed b y hand. W hen m i xi ng was com ple te, the bl end w as dispense d thro ugh a ho se i nto Cli ff or d’s tank. C lifford tra n sp or te d ea c h ba tc h to h is field s an d u se d h is o wn spr aye qui pm en t to s pr aythe s ee d c orn. W i th i n a wee ko fs pr ay i ng, Cl i ff o r d b eg an to n o ti ce da m ag e to the corn . A t least s o m e o f th e corn on allthree of Clifford’s fi elds even tu all y d ied. A t M ons an to’s directi o n, Clifford destr oye d al l o fthe cor n on one of the fi el ds and a por ti on o fthe c o r n o n a s e c o nd fi e l d. Cl i ff o r d c o nt ac te d C PS to di sc us s the dam ag e t o hi s co r n. CPS, i n tur n, co nt ac te d a r epr es en ta ti ve o fS te adf as t, who v i s i t e d C l i ff o r d’ s fi e l ds a nd c o nc l ud e d tha tS t e a dfas t cau se d t h e d am ag e. Shor tl y a f ter the St eadf ast re prese ntat i ve’ s v i si t, however, Pat Geneser, a M onsant o empl o y ee , v i si te d Cl i ff o r d’ s fi el ds. Af te r v i ewi ng th e co r n, Geneserbeg an to suspectthat the dam age was caused by g l y pho sa te , the a ct i ve i ng r edi en t i n Mons an to ’ s Ro undup herbi ci de. Geneserse nt sam ple s ofthe dam age d cor n to a laboratory, an d after analysis the laboratory d e t erm i ned that the s am ple s co ntai ned tr ace am ounts of gl yphosat e

— sp ec i fi cal l y, 1/ 76, 000 ofa fulldose o f gl yphosat e. A fterr ecei vi ng the l abor ato ry ’ s r esul ts, G en ese r i nfe rr ed that CP S m i ght ha ve acci dental l y m i xed Round up i nto Cli ff or d’s custo m bl end. Cl i ff or d then fi l ed4 N o. 10

- 1377 thi s s uitag ai nst CPS, al l egi ng negligence and br each o f i mpl i e d wa r ra nty. Cl i ff or d eventual l y dro pp ed the i m pli ed wa r r a n t y c l a i m, l e a v i n go n l y th e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m. CPS de f en ded ag ains t th e ne g l i g en ce c l ai m o n f o ur g r o unds

. F i r st, i t ar g ue d tha t i t was the su l f o ny l ur ea a nd pig m ent- i nhibi torherbi ci des in t he cust om bl end that d am ag ed C lifford ’s c or n, no t g lyp h os at e. Se c on d , i t ar gued that eve n i fCl i ff or d coul d prove thatgl yphosat e caused the dam age , he c oul d not pro ve that th e custom b l e nd wa s the s o ur c e o fthe g l yphosat e . I n thi s r e g a r d, CPS n ote d tha t Cl i ff o r d’ s ta nko r s pr aye qui pm en t m i g htha ve b ee n c o nt ami na te d wi thglypho sa te
. CPS al so note d that s om eone nearCl i ff or d’s fi el ds m ay have used a g l yphosat e herbi ci de on hi s or h er own cro ps, and that dr i ft fro m t he nei ghbor i ng fi el d m ay have been th e so ur ce o fthe g l y pho sa te de tected i n Cl i ff o r d’ s co r n. Th i r d, CP S a r g ue d tha t e v e n i f the c us t o m b l e nd was th e sourc e o fthe gl yphosat e, Cl i ff or d coul d not pro ve that CPS had bre ached any du ty ofcare w hen i t pr epare d and dispensed the cust om blen d . F i nal l y, CPS ar gued th at eve n i f Cli ff or d c oul d pr ove al l the el em ents of h is ne g l i g e nc e c l a i m, the c l a i m wo ul d s t i l l f a i l a s a m att er o f law be c au se it w as ba rre d by th e e c on om ic los s d oc tr in e. As di sc o ve r y i n the di st r i ctco ur t pr o ce ede d, the de adl i ne f o r Cl i ff o r d t o di sc l o se e xpe r t wi tn es se s ca m e an d went w i thout Cli ff or d discl osing exper t t est i m ony i n supp or t o f hi s cl ai m s. CPS thus m ove d fo r sum m ar y j u d gm ent, ar gui ng tha t without a n expertCl i ff or d could notsho w eit h erthathi s dam age s were caused bygl yphosat e, that CP S w as the s ourc e o fthe gl yphosat e, o r that CP S hadN o. 10

- 1377 5

A ctuall y, C li f f ord nev er ar gued to the dist ri ctcourt that 2 Ge n e s e r wa s a l a y wi t n e s s r a t he r th a n a n e x p e r twi t n e s s . He s i m pl y a s s um ed thatGene s er ’ s t es t i m ony was l ay t es t i m ony. R u le 26 (a)( 2)(A) p ro v id es in relev an t pa rt t h a t “a p arty m u st 3 disc los e t o the other parti es the i dentity ofan y w itn es s itm ay use at tri al to p res ent evidence und er Federal Ru le ofEv idence 70 2, 70 3, or 70 5. ” R u le s 70 2 t o 7 05 ar e t he Fe der al Rul es of Evide nc e t hatpe rm i tpar t i es t o o f f er e xpe rtt es t i m ony. breac he d any d ut y. C PS also m oved f o r sum m ary j ud gm ent b ase d on the eco nom i c l oss doctr i ne. I n opposi ng CPS’ s m oti on, Cl i ff or d did not dis pu te that he ha d no t di sc l o se d a ny e xpe rt t es ti m o ny . Howev er, he too k the posi ti on that Genese r’ s t est i m on y w as l ay ra ther than expert tes ti m ony and that such tes ti m ony was su ffi ci en t to e st ab l i shtha t g l y pho sa te ha d c au se d the d am age to his corn

. H e furth er a rgue d that exp ert 2 tes ti m ony w as not re quir ed to show that C PS had br eached a dut y o fc ar e be ca us e a tr i ero ff act co uld i nferfr o m the prese nce o fgl yphosat e i n hi s cor n that CPS had br eached a duty t o supp l y hi m with g l yphosat e- f re e herbi ci de. The d i s t r i c tc o u r td e t e r mi n e d th a tG e n e s e r ’ s t e s t i mo ny w as e xp e r tt e s t i mon y tha twa s i na dmi s s ib l e du e to Cli ffor d ’s f ai l ure to disc l ose i t i n acco rdance w i th Fe deral Rule ofCi vi l Pro cedure 26( a) ( 2) ( A )
. The co urt then 3 g r an te d CPS ’ s m o ti o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t, r ea so ni ng that, witho ut such t est i m on y, Cli ff or d coul d not e stabl i sh the c ausati on a nd br each ofd uty el em ents ofhi s neg l i gence c l a i m.6 N o. 10

- 1377

Cliff ord d oes not argue that hi s f ail ure to disc los e Geneser as 4 a n e x pe r twi t ne s s wa s s ub s t a nt i a l l y j us t i fi e d. II. O n a p p ea l, C lifford a rg u es t h at t h e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld not hav e grant ed sum m ary j u d g m en t beca us e G en eser’s te st i m o ny a s to c au sa ti o n was n ot ex per t te st i m o ny a nd be ca us e ex per t te st i m o ny i s no t ne ede d to sh ow that CPS b re ac h ed a d u ty of ca re . H e a l s o a r g u es th at, eve n if G en es er ’s t es ti m o n y w as ex p er t t es tim on y t h at sh ou ld have been disc l ose d und erRule 26 ( a)( 2) ( A ) , the dist ri ct co ur tab us e d i t s di s c r e t i o n b y e xc l ud i ngs uc h t e s t i mony, si nce the f ai l ure to proper l y d i s c l o s e Ge neserwas harm l ess . See Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 37 ( c) ( 1) ( provi ding that sancti on o f au tom atic exc lusio n of w itness doe s not ap p ly w he re failu r e t o p ro p er ly d isc los e w itn es s w as su b st an tia lly j us tified or harm less). 4 CP S ar gues that Cli ff or d w ai ved two of hi s a rgum ents

— that Geneserwas a l ay ra ther than expertwitnes s a nd that, ev en if h e w as an e x p er t w itn es s, th e fa ilu re to d isc los e h im w as harm l ess

—by f ai l i ng to rai se them in the di str i ct c ourt
. See, e . g. , M a rseil l e s Hyd ro Pow e r, LL C v. M ars e i l l e s La nd & Wa ter Co. , 5 18 F
. 3d 45 9, 4 70 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( ho l di ng th at argu m en ts not rai sed i n d istri ct cou rt are w aived ). I n thi s co urt, Cl i ff or d does not respond to CPS’ s a sse rt i on ofwaive r, and thus w e concl ud e that Cli ff or d has waiv ed a nyc ha l l e ng e t o the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s d eci s i o n t o e xc l ud e Geneser ’ s t est i m ony. N one th eles s , e ven i f w e w ere to cons ider G en eser’s tes ti m ony, we w oul d affi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fN o. 10

- 1377 7

W e r e v i e w th i s d e t e rm i n a t i on de novo . Me y e rs v . Na t ’ lR. R. 5 Passe ngerCorp. (

Am trak ) , 61 9 F .3d 72 9 , 73 3 (7th C ir. 20 1 0 ). sum m ary j ud gm ent. To s urvi ve sum m ar y j ud gm ent, 5 Cli ff or d needed to produce ev id en ce per m i tti ng a reason able trier o f fa ct to fi nd allof th e elem en ts of a negl i gence cla i m under I l l i noi s l aw

— du ty, br each o fduty, and causati on . See Fe d . R. C iv. P . 56(c )(2) ; Le wis v. CITGO Pe t r ol e um Corp. , 561 F .3 d 6 98, 702 ( 7th Cir. 20 09 ) (listin g e lem e n t s of n eg lige n c e c laim u n d er Il lin ois l aw )
. I n the prese nt case , that m eant produci n g e vidence per m i tt i nga r ea so nabl e tr i ero ff ac t to fi nd the f o l l o wi ng f acts : ( 1) gl yphosat e caused Cli ff or d’s cor n d am age ; ( 2) the so urce ofthe gl yphosat e was CPS’ s cust om h erb icid e b len d ; a n d (3) h ad C P S ex er c ise d rea so n ab le car e, the custo m herbi ci de bl end w oul d no t have conta i ned gl yphosat e. A tr i ero ff act coul d have infe rre d fr om Gen es er ’ s te st i m o n y t h a t g l y p h o s a t e ca us ed th e co r n damag e, sin ce Gen es ert es ti fi ed th atthe da m ag e he obs er ved co uld nothave b ee n caused by a nythi ng o ther th an gl yp hos ate. ( G en eser D ep . at 44.) H ow ever, as expla i ned bel ow, Geneser ’ s tes ti m ony w oul d not hav e supp or ted the r em ai ni ng two fi nd i ngs. R egard ing the sourc e of t h e gl yp hos ate, Gen eser’s tes ti m ony w as that Cli ff or d’s cor n coul d h av e c om e i nto conta ct with the herbi ci de in a n um bero fdi ff er ent ways. G en es er ’s “ b es t g u es s” w as th at C P S m ist ak en ly inc o r p orated Rou nd up i nt o Clifford’s cu stom blend dur ing th e m ixin g proc ess. ( G en eser D ep . at 91.) H ow ever, Geneserco uld not“rul e out” otherso urces o fgl yphosat e.8 N o. 10

- 1377 H e a d m itt ed th at glyp h os a t e c o u ld h av e b ee n p re se n t in t h e ta n k t h at C lifford u se d to tra n sp or t t h e b len d to h is field s o r in t h e sp ra y eq u ip m en t th at C lifford u se d to ap p ly the b l end. H e a l so adm i tte d that glyp h os ate co uld have dri ft e d o nt o Cl i ff o r d’ s c r o ps a ft e r a f a r meri n the v i ci ni ty spray ed hi s o r her own cr ops with a g l yphosat e herbi ci de, al th o ug h he th o ug ht i t “u nl i k el y ” th at spr aydr i ft was the cause ofth e dam age o n al l thr ee ofCl i ff or d’s fi el ds. M os t im p or ta n tly , G en es er n ev er te st ified th at itw a s h is o pi ni o n tha t CPS w as th e s o ur ce o fthe g l y pho sa te a nd ad m itt ed that hi s th eo ry ab ou t C P S m ist ak en ly i nc o r po r at i ngRo undup i nt o the c us to m bl en d was no th i ng m or e th an s pecula ti on. Thus, a tr i ero ff act coul d not re aso nabl y infe r f ro m Geneser’s tes ti m ony that CP S w as th e s o u r c e o f th e g lyp h os at e. See Weigel v . Ta rget S to res , 122 F. 3d 461, 468 -69 (7th Cir

. 19 97) ( sta ti ng tha t sp ecu latio n, even by an ex p ert, is no bar to sum m ary j ud gm en t). M or eo ve r, ev en if w e a ss u m ed th at a tr i e r of fa c t c ou ld i nfe r f ro m Geneser ’ s tes ti m ony that CP S w as th e s ou rce o fthe g l y p hos ate, Ge ne se r di d no t o ffera ny t es ti m o ny c on c er n in g t h e re m ain in g e le m e n t o f C lifford ’s c laim

— w hetherCPS br eached a du ty ofcar e. Cl i ff or d does no t dispute thi s, but ar gues that expertte sti m ony w as not needed to est abl i sh thatCPS had f ai l ed to exer ci se du e car e. I n Cli ff or d’s vi ew , the sta nd ar d o fcar e r equi re d CPS t o de l i ve r a n h erbi ci de bl en d tha t co nt aine d o nl y the chem i cal s that Cli ff or d or dered

— St eadf astand Cal l i sto

— and th at th er efo r e th e tr i ero ff ac t co ul d i nferfr o m the prese nce ofgl yphosat e i n the bl end that CP S had fa i l ed to use due ca re .N o. 10

- 1377 9

C lifford ’ s attor ne y ob v io u sly thin k s that g lyp ho sate is 6 extrem ely d an g ero u s, ev en in sm all am ou nts. A t or al arg u m en t, he c om par ed g l yphos at e c ont am i nat i on t o a pha r mac i s ta c c i dent al l y m i xi ng a rs en i c i nt o a pres c ri pt i on. Butthe s t at em en t s of l a w y er s a re n o t e v id en ce , U ni t ed Sta t es v. Di az , 5 3 3 F
. 3 d 574, 57 8 (7th C ir. 20 08 ), an d w e ha v e b een d irected to no ev id en ce in the rec ord indicati ng that glyp h o sa te is as dang erous to s eed co rn as C liffo rd ’s at to rn ey th in k s it is. The probl em with thi s a rgum ent i s that C l i ff or d has not off er ed evi dence that w oul d a l l ow a re aso nabl e t ri ero ff act to concl ud e that the st andard ofcar e r equi re d C PS t o ensure thatthe bl end did not conta i n gl yphosat e. “D eterm i ni ngwhethe r a de f en dan t ha s f ai l ed to us e due car e t o preventan acci dent requir es a com pari son between th e c os t o f th e p re c au tio n th at w o u ld h av e p re ve n te d it and the co st ofthe acci dent thato c c u rred as a re sul t o f th e ab se nc e o fthe p recauti o n, di sc o unt ed bythe p ro b ab ility of an ac c id en t if th e p re c au tio n w as n otta ke n .” Torrez v. T G I Fri day ’s, Inc. , 50 9 F
. 3d 808, 81 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) (app lyi ng I ll inois law ). T hu s, to p rove ne gli gen ce, Clifford was r equir ed to pr o duce e vi den ce i den ti fy i ngthe preca uti on that CPS f ai l ed to ta ke, the cos t o fthat pr ec auti o n, a nd the e xpe ct ed co sto fthe a cc i den t th atthe p reca ut i o n was de si g ne d t o pr ev en t. Howev er, Cl i ff o rd o ff e r e d n o e v i d e n c e o n th e s e i s s u e s . F o r a l l we kn o w, gl yphosat e m ay not be parti cul ar l y harm ful i n sm al l dose s (perh ap s t he sp ecifi c strains th at C li ff ord plan ted w ere unu sual l y s ensi ti ve to gl yphosat e) , and thus the expecte d c o s to fa c c i d e n t a l g l y p h o s a t e c o n t a mi n a t i o nma y b e l o w. 6 On the o th ers i de o fthe s ca l e, i t m aybe t ha t th e10 N o. 10

- 1377 preca uti ons an herbi ci de supp lier w oul d need to tak e t o ensure thata bl end contained no r esi du algl ypho sa te w hatso eve r ar e e xtre m el y c ost l y. I f thi s w er e the case , then the s tandard o fcar e would not have re quir ed CPS to ta ke th e p re c au tio n s, b ec au se t h e c os t of th e p re c au tio n s w ou ld have ou tw ei ghed thei r expected be nefi t. I n l i ght o f Cli ff or d’s f ai l ure to supp l y any e vi dence on these m att er s, no r ea so nabl e tr i ero ff act cou ld ha ve f o und tha t CPS bre ached i ts du ty ofcar e. Fi nal l y, we no te that, i n ar gui ng tha t the tr i ero ff act coul d have i nfe rr ed negl i gence fro m the p re sence of g l y pho sa te i n h i s bl en d, Cl i ff o r d s eem s to b e i nv o k i ng th e d octrine of r e s ip s a l o q ui t ur . Th i s doct ri ne “a l l ows a pl aint i fft o pr ev ai l i n a ne g l i g en ce c as e bys ho wi ng that eve n i fthere is no di re ct e vi dence ofnegl i gence , th e c irc u m st an c es of th e a c c id en t in d ica te th at it p ro b ab ly w oul d not hav e o ccurr ed had the defendant not been negl i gent. ” Agui r r ev. Tur ne rCons t r . Co. , 582 F. 3d 808, 810- 11 ( 7th Cir. 2 009) ( applying I l l i noi s l aw )
. H er e, Cl i ff o r d ha s no di r ec t ev i den ce indi ca tingtha t CPS w as negl i gent, and he wants the tr i ero ff act to i nfe r that gl yphosat e would nothave b een i n hi s bl end had C PS e xe r ci se d r ea so nabl e ca r e i n mi xi nga nd di spe ns i ng his cu stom blend

. Bu t this is n ot a prop er case for res ips a l oq ui t ur . I n a p rop er c as e, i t m us t be o bv i o us t o the tr i ero ff act that an acc i dent ofthe type that i nj ured the pl ai nti ffr ar el y o ccurs i n the a b sence ofnegl i gence . S m o ot v. M azd a M otors of Am
. , Inc. , 4 6 9 F
. 3 d 6 7 5 , 67 9- 80 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ). A ty p ica l ex am p le i s w h er e, aft er su rg er y, a pl a i nt i ffdi s c o v e r s tha ta s ur geo n’ s s po ng e wa s l e fti ns i de h is a b d om en . Id. at68 0. I n such a case , t h e t ri ero ff actN o. 10

- 1377 11

Cliff ord elec ted t o bring a negli gence cl aim rather than a s tr ic t 7 pro duct s li abi l i t y cl ai m , b utf or good m ea s ur e we no t e t hatthe r e s ul twou l d h a ve be e n t he s am e had C l i f f or d p r e s s e d a pr od

u ct s l i a b i l ity cla im
. T o p rev ail on such a claim , C lifford w ou ld ha v e ha d to p ro d u ce ev id en ce from w hich the trier of fact cou ld have det er m i ne d t hatthe pr es en c e ofgl yphos at e i n the bl en d m ade th e b le nd “unreas onab ly dangerou s. ” SeeM i kol aj czyk v. For d M ot orC o. , 901 N
. E.2d 329, 345 ( Il l. 2008)
. Ag ain, s ince Cliff ord d id not off er any evidence concer ning the dan gers ofg l yp ho s a t e c on t a m i na t i on, thi s c l a i m wou l d h a ve f a i l e d. can i nfe r w i thout consi de ring additi onalev i dence that som eon e i n the o per at i ngr o o m was ne g l i g en t. I n the prese nt cas e, h owever, i t i s no t o bvi ous that g l yphosat e ra re l y e nd s up i n bl ends w here i t i s no t wanted unle ss th e s up pl i e r h a s b e e n ne g l i g e nt
. As we e xp l a i ne d a bove , ab se ntc o nt r ar y e vi den ce , we ha ve no r ea so n to thi nk that gl yphosat e co ntam i nati on i s such a se ri ous pr obl em th ati ts o cc ur r en ce s i g ni fi es ne g l i g en ce . On th e pr es en t record , i t i s j us t as l i k el y th at Cl i ff ord ’s corn w as unexp ecte dly se nsi ti ve to l eve ls of gl yphosat e that w ou ld h ave caused no harm to the vastm aj or i ty of se e d c o r n s t r a i ns . T hu s , b e f o r e the t r i e r o ff a c tc o ul d h ave inferred from the trac e am ou nt of glyph osate i n C li ff ord ’s corn t ha t C PS h ad breach ed i ts d ut y of care, Clifford woul d ha ve ha d t o pr o duce s om e ev i den ce abo utthe dangers o fgl yph os ate co ntam i nati on. Because he f ai l ed to do so , the dist ri ct c ourtpro perl y g ra nted CPS’s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. 712 N o. 10

- 1377 III. For the reas ons stated , the j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct cou rt i s A FFI RMED .

11- 29- 10