Johnson v. Monsanto Co.

Whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert is relative to the topic about which the witness is asked to testify. A witness testifying as an expert needs to have the necessary skill and knowledge to arrive at an intelligent conclusion about the subject matter in dispute. Or. Evid. Code 702.

The plaintiff appealed a case in which he claimed that using a pesticide manufactured by the defendant caused his Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. He argued that the trial court wrongly excluded the testimony of Dr. Charles Benbrook, an expert on EPA regulation, and that this exclusion was not harmless. In a cross-assignment of error, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying its motion for a directed verdict, claiming that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempted the plaintiff’s claims. Whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert is relative to the topic about which the witness is asked to testify. A witness testifying as an expert needs to have the necessary skill and knowledge to arrive at an intelligent conclusion about the subject matter in dispute. Or. Evid. Code 702. The Court found that the trial court had erred in excluding Dr. Benbrook’s expert testimony on pesticide regulation under FIFRA. It reasoned that Dr. Benbrook was qualified to testify, and his insights would have helped the jury understand the relevance of FIFRA. The Court also rejected the defendant’s argument on FIFRA preemption, citing prior rulings in Carson v. Monsanto Co. and Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., which foreclosed the defendant’s preemption defense. The Court held that while the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony, it did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Reversed and remanded.