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 Protection Co. ; and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Petition of: Dow AgroSciences, LLC, Bayer CropScience, LP, Bayer Corporation, and Bayer CropScience Holding, 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.; Monsanto Company; Nufarm Americas, Inc.; Regal Chemical Co.; Scotts-Sierra Crop Protection Co. ; and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Petition of: John Deere Landscaping, 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.; Monsanto Company; Nufarm Americas, Inc.; Regal Chemical Co.; Scotts-Sierra Crop Protection Co. ; and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Petition 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.; Monsanto Company; Nufarm Americas, Inc.; Regal Chemical Co.; Scotts-Sierra Crop Protection Co. ; and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Petition of: Monsanto Company 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 Protection Co. ; and Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Petition of: BASF Corporation

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania2019-03-05No. No. 359 WAL 2018; No. 360 WAL 2018; No. 361 WAL 2018; No. 362 WAL 2018; No. 363 WAL 2018

203 A.3d 976

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2019, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal are GRANTED. The Application to File Brief as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, submitted by the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Croplife America, and Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry, is also granted. The issues, as stated by petitioners, are:

(1) Did the Superior Court majority commit reversible error in concluding that, when evaluating scientific evidence under the Frye standard, trial courts are not permitted to act as gatekeepers to ensure the relevance and reliability of scientific studies offered by experts to support their opinions by scrutinizing whether those studies actually support their opinions?

(2) Did the Superior Court majority commit reversible error in concluding that trial courts may not review experts opinions extrapolating from a broad class of products and injuries to a specific product and injury, thereby eliminating plaintiffs burden to show product-specific causation of plaintiffs specific injury?

(3) Did the Superior Court majority commit reversible error in concluding that the trial court erred without explaining how it abused its discretion because of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, ill-will or such lack of support from the evidence or the record so as to be clearly erroneous?