181 F.3d 86 (4th Cir. 1999), 98-1189, Andrews v. Buckman Laboratories, Inc.

Docket Nº:98-1189.
Citation:181 F.3d 86
Party Name:John ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BUCKMAN LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee,and BETZ PAPER CHEM, INCORPORATED, Defendant.
Case Date:May 21, 1999
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 86

181 F.3d 86 (4th Cir. 1999)

John ANDREWS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BUCKMAN LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee,and

BETZ PAPER CHEM, INCORPORATED, Defendant.

No. 98-1189.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

May 21, 1999

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Argued January 29, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence, (CA-95-3920-4-22); Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.

Walter Ronald Bonds, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.

Donald Alan Cockrill, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Martin S. Driggers, Driggers & Baxley, Hartsville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kimila L. Wooten, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

John Andrews sued Buckman Laboratories, Inc. for personal injuries he claims to have sustained as a result of exposure to Buckman's product, Busan 30 WB ("Busan"). At the close of Andrews's case in a jury trial, the district court dismissed all of Andrews's state-law claims arising from the alleged deficiency of the Material Safety Data Sheet ("MSDS") that Buckman provided with shipments of Busan, concluding that those claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136v ("FIFRA").

On appeal, Andrews asserts that the district court erroneously applied the preemption doctrine, and that the dismissal of his state-law claims must be reversed. Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument, we find it unnecessary to reach the FIFRA preemption issue. We affirm the district court on the basis of Andrews's failure to meet the required standards of proof that the alleged defects in Buckman's MSDS actually caused his injuries.

I.

Andrews worked for twenty-two years as a paper tender at the Sonoco Company's paper mill in Hartsville, South Carolina. In order to perform his duties, Andrews was required to spend a substantial amount of his time at the open end of a pulp processing machine, which the parties refer to as "Machine # 3." This machine continuously produced a mist of the stock...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP