Court Opinion

ID: 9654883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:53:54.600688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.303684
License: Public Domain

SHRUM, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. I write separately to repeat my position, originally set forth in Yowell v. Chevron Chemical Co., 836 S.W.2d 62 (Mo.App.1992) that this court should never have embraced the view that FIFRA (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.) impliedly preempted state common law tort suits against manufacturers of EPA-regulated pesticides to the extent such claims are based on claims of inadequate labeling. Id. at 66-69. As noted there, we should never “proceed upon the presumption that the EPA is infallible.” Id. at 69. Many reasons exist for this observation, not the least of which is the prolific hiring of EPA employees by private firms. Apparently, such hiring practices proliferate in the hope that former employees can use their expertise and acquaintanceship with EPA personnel to “smooth the way” when labeling requests are submitted to the EPA.
I hasten to add there is no evidence of such a practice in this record. There is, however, evidence that the EPA-approved labeling, for whatever reason, was inadequate in this case and that the defects in labeling caused or contributed to cause Plaintiffs’ losses. Because Yowell compelled a finding of preemption in M & H Enterprises v. Tri-State Delta Chemicals, Inc., 984 S.W.2d 175 (Mo.App.1998) (Tri-State I), it appears Plaintiffs are left with no remedy. Such result is especially regrettable considering the evidence from which a jury of twelve Missouri citizens could have found inadequate labeling that caused damage. Although Tri-State I cannot be changed and although I concur in the principal opinion, I persist in my belief that Yowell was wrongly decided. This case shows why Yowell and its progeny should be overruled.