TWO Dallas lawyers, Charles Siegel and Russell Budd, represent a
group of Costa Rican banana-plantation workers who say that handling
a chemical pesticide manufactured by two United States companies has
made them sterile. For six years the lawyers have struggled to be
allowed to sue the companies in a US court, and last year the Texas
Supreme Court cleared the way. But by the end of this month, the
Texas legislature may write a law that shuts the courthouse door.
The lawmakers don't carry a grudge against the Costa Ricans. Some
are worried that the case will encourage foreign plaintiffs to come
to Texas to sue companies that operate in the state. That would have
a "very, very chilling effect on the business community, primarily
on future economic development in this state," says a state
legislator, Rep. Parker McCollough, in a telephone interview.
The banana workers' case pits supporters, who argue that US
courts sometimes may be the best place to hold corporations
accountable for their actions overseas, against critics, who
maintain that courts should preserve the right to dismiss cases
deemed "inconvenient" for one or both of the parties involved.
And the origins of this case highlight another controversy:
whether US chemical companies should be allowed to sell their
products abroad if their use is banned or restricted in this
country. (See related article below.)
The attorneys are members of a small Dallas firm, Baron & Budd,
that specializes in so-called "toxic torts," cases where people sue
companies for damages after they've been injured by a chemical. They
heard about the Costa Rican farm workers in late 1982.
The firm was called in by a toxicologist working for the Costa
Rican judiciary who "began to notice this unfolding epidemic of
sterility" among banana workers, says Mr. Siegel. The thread linking
the workers was exposure to DBCP, a worm-killing pesticide made by
Shell Oil Company and Dow Chemical Company.
Troubles with DBCP cropped up in the US in 1977, when dozens of
workers who had been exposed to the pesticide were found to be
sterile. Its use was immediately restricted and virtually banned two
years later by government authorities.
Many of the US workers sued for damages. One San Francisco jury
in 1983 ordered Dow to pay six production workers and three of their
wives almost $5 million to compensate for DBCP effects.
That same year, Mr. Budd sued Dow, Shell, and other companies in
a Florida court, but the case soon got into trouble over a legal
doctrine called forum non conveniens. Dating back to 17th-century
Scotland, forum allows a judge to dismiss a case if it is in the
interest of justice and more "convenient" for the parties to try the
case elsewhere. The doctrine is used in at least 40 states and by
Dow and Shell have denied that they sold DBCP for use abroad
after federal restrictions were imposed in the late 1970s, but they
also argue that Costa Ricans should seek justice in their own
courts. The judges in Florida agreed, dismissing the DBCP case on
Budd then took the case to Texas in 1984 and California in 1985.
The latter action was dismissed, but the Texas case ended up in that
state's Supreme Court. …