Weissman v. Clean Response, et al. v. Dri-Eaz, No. 27-CV-08-28192
Hennepin County Dist. Ct., Minn.
Type of Case: Product Liability - Chemical Exposure
Practice Area(s): Products Liability
Lawyer(s): Bradley J. Lindeman John E. Radmer
Date: Apr 1 2010
Plaintiff toddler, by and through her guardian ad litem, claimed a permanent respiratory impairment due to exposure to a biocide used to destroy mold growth in the basement of her home. Third-party defendant Dri-Eaz sought summary judgment, arguing that failure-to-warn claims were precluded by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Dri-Eaz also argued that the claims brought by a sophisticated user, a professional mold abatement firm, failed as a matter of law because the mold abatement company failed to follow the manufacturer’s written instructions provided with the product. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the third-party defendant.Back to Experience