[ J

- 92A

- E

- 2019 ] [MO: Donohue, J. ]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

RICHARD THOMAS WALSH, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. WALSH,
DECEASED

v.

BASF CORPORATION; BAYER
CORPORATION D/B/A BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P., AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., AND/OR BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P. AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., IN THEIR OWN RIGHT; BIOSAFE SYSTEMS, L.L.C.; CHEMTURA CORPORATION; CLEARY CHEMICAL CORP.; DOW AGROSCIENCES, L.L.C.; E.H. GRIFFITH, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., INC.; G.B. BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION; JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPING, INC., SUCCESSOR TO LESCO, INC.; MONSANTO COMPANY; NUFARM AMERICAS, INC.; REGAL CHEMICAL CO.; SCOTTS

- SIERRA CROP
PRO TECTION CO.; AND SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

APPEAL OF: DOW AGROSCIENCES, LLC, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, LP, BAYER CORPORATION, AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 14 WAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered June 20,
2018 at No. 1661 WDA 2016 vacating the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered October 14, 2016 at No. GD

10

- 018588, and remanding.

ARGUED: October 16, 2019

RICHARD THOMAS WALSH, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. WALSH,
DECEASED

v. :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 15 WAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered June 20, 2018 at No. 1661 WDA 2016, vacating the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County[ J

- 92A

- E

- 2019 ] [MO: Donohue, J. ]

- 2

BASF CORPORATION; BAYER
CORPORATION D/B/A BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P., AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., AND/OR BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P. AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., IN THEIR
OWN RIG HT; BIOSAFE SYSTEMS, L.L.C.; CHEMTURA CORPORATION; CLEARY CHEMICAL CORP.; DOW AGROSCIENCES, L.L.C.; E.H. GRIFFITH, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., INC.; G.B. BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION; JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPING, INC., SUCCESSOR TO LESCO, INC.; MONSANTO C OMPANY; NUFARM AMERICAS, INC.; REGAL CHEMICAL CO.; SCOTTS

- SIERRA CROP PROTECTION CO.; AND SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

APPEAL OF: DEERE & COMPANY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: entered October 14, 2016 at No. GD

10

- 018588, and remanding.

ARGUED: October 16, 2019

RICHARD THOMAS WALSH, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. WALSH,
DECEASED

v.

BASF CORPORATION; BAYER
CORPORATION D/B/A BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P., AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., AND/OR BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P. AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., IN THEIR OWN RIGHT; BIOSAFE SYSTEMS, L.L.C.; CHEMTURA CORPORATION; CLEARY CHEMICAL CORP.; DOW AGROSCIENCES, L.L.C.; E.H. GRIFFITH, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., INC.; G.B. BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION; JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPING, INC., SUCCESSOR TO :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 16 WAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered June 20, 2018 at No. 1661 WDA 2016, vacating the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered October 14, 2016 at No. GD

10

- 018588, and remanding.

ARGUED: October 16, 2019[ J

- 92A

- E

- 2019 ] [MO: Donohue, J. ]

- 3

LESCO, INC.; MO NSANTO COMPANY; NUFARM AMERICAS, INC.; REGAL CHEMICAL CO.; SCOTTS

- SIERRA CROP PROTECTION CO.; AND SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

APPEAL OF: SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

RICHARD THOMAS WALSH, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. WALSH,
DECEASED

v.

BASF CORPORATION; BAYER
CORPORATION D/B/A BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P., AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., AND/OR BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P. AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., IN THEIR OWN RIGHT; BIOSAFE SYSTEMS, L.L.C.; CHEMTURA CORPORATION; CLEARY CHEMICAL CORP.; DOW AGROSCIENCES, L.L.C.; E.H. GRIFFITH, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., INC.; G.B. BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION; JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPING, INC., SUCCESSOR TO LESCO, INC.; MO NSANTO COMPANY; NUFARM AMERICAS, INC.; REGAL CHEMICAL CO.; SCOTTS

- SIERRA CROP PROTECTION CO.; AND SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

APPEAL OF: MONSANTO COMPANY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 17 WAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered June 20, 2018 at No. 1661 WDA 2016, vacating the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered October 14, 2016 at No. GD

10

- 018588, and remanding.

ARGUED: October 16, 2019

RICHARD THOMAS WALSH, E XECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS J. WALSH,
DECEASED :

:

:

:

: No. 18 WAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered June 20, 2018 at No. 1661 WDA 2016,[ J

- 92A

- E

- 2019 ] [MO: Donohue, J. ]

- 4 v.

BASF CORPORATION; BAYER
CORPORATION D/B/A BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P., AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., AND/OR BAYER CROPSCIENCE, L.P. AND BAYER CROPSCIENCE HOLDING, INC., IN THEIR OWN RIGHT; BIOSAFE SYSTEMS, L.L.C.; CHEMTURA CORPORATION; CLEARY CHEMICAL CORP.; DOW AGROSCIENCES, L.L.C.; E.H. GRIFFITH, INC.; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., INC.; G.B. BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION; JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPING, INC., SUCCESSOR TO LESCO, INC.; MONSANTO COMPA NY; NUFARM AMERICAS, INC.; REGAL CHEMICAL CO.; SCOTTS

- SIERRA CROP PROTECTION CO.; AND SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC.

APPEAL OF: BASF CORPORATION :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: vacating the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered October 14, 2016 at No. GD

10

- 018588, and remanding.

ARGUED: October 16, 2019

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

JUSTICE BAER DECIDED: JULY 21, 2020

I join the majority opinion as to Issue s One and Three , subject to the clarifications

set forth below. I likewise agree with the majority’s mandate, remandin g the case to the

trial court to afford Appellants the opportunity to reassert their challenges to Appellee’s

expert scientific evidence pursuant to Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

I respectfully dissent , however, from Issue Two

, as I agree that Appellee’s experts

engaged in improper extr apolation for the reasons ably set forth by the Chief Justice in

his dissenting opinion

.[ J

- 92A

- E

- 2019 ] [MO: Donohue, J. ]

- 5

W hile I join the majority as to Issue One , I write separately to express my view that

this case involves close r question s as to whether the trial court abused its di scretion

,
given the analytical gaps identified by the t rial court that call into question the methodology

employed by Appellee’s expert s

, as summarized by the Chief Justice, see id. at 6

- 10

.

Indeed, some of t hese failings are also detailed in the majority’s recitation of the

Appellants’ experts’ testimony, see Majority Opinion

, slip op. at 24

- 25

.

Nevertheless, I ultimately agree with the majority that the trial court abused its

discretion in concluding that Appellee’s experts ’ testimonies were in admissible under Frye

by utilizing its own ass essment of the scientific evidence rather than specifically relying

upon Appellants’ experts’ analysis. While a case may involve such a blatant failure of an

expert to apply generally accepted methodologies that a trial court need not rely upon the

opposing party’s expert

, t rial court s in most cases should be guided by the experts offered

by the parties rather than determining scientific validity on their own, especially

considering the diversity of individua l judges’ scientific knowledge

. See Grady v. Frito

Lay, Inc. , 839 A.2d 1038, 10 45 (Pa. 2003) (recognizing the need for “ individua l judges,

whose backgrounds in science may vary widely” to be “guided by the consensus that

exists in the scientific community ” ). Indeed, the risk of trial cour ts assuming the role of

scientific experts in determining what is “generally accepted ” is more pronounced as the

science becomes more complex , as demonstrated by the case at bar. Accordingly, I

conclude that the trial co urt sub judice abused its discretion and remand is appropriate.

I additionally write to distance myself respectfully from the majority opinion to the

extent it declines to recognize the trial court as “ gatekeeper ” in Frye challenges

. Majority

Opinion

, slip op. at 20. As expressed by Judge Beck in Blum v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

, 705 A.2d 1314, 1325 (Pa. Super. 1997)

, aff’d , 764 A.2d 1 (Pa.

2000), “ t he gatekeeping role of the court, far from detracting from the jury ’ s function, is in[ J

- 92A

- E

- 2019 ] [MO: Donohue, J. ]

- 6

fact esse ntial to it [ as it ensures] that what might appear to the jury to be science is not in

fact speculation in disguise .”

Finally, I join Part II of the Chief Justic e’s dissent, addressing this Court’s prior

decision in Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC , 44 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2012)

.