{"id":2775,"date":"2017-01-19T10:07:33","date_gmt":"2017-01-19T18:07:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/alan\/?p=2775"},"modified":"2017-02-24T21:09:44","modified_gmt":"2017-02-25T05:09:44","slug":"jury-says-dupont-must-pay-for-harm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.reed.edu\/alan\/2017\/01\/jury-says-dupont-must-pay-for-harm\/","title":{"rendered":"Jury Says DuPont Must Pay for Harm Caused by Spilled Chemical"},"content":{"rendered":"

An Ohio jury has awarded $10.5 million in punitive<\/em> damages to a man who claimed that his testicular cancer was caused by exposure to water that a Dupont<\/strong> factory had contaminated with perfluorooctanoic<\/strong> acid<\/strong><\/a> (also known as PFOA or C-8 because the molecule contains 8 carbon atoms). C-8 is used to make teflon<\/strong><\/a>, the perfluorocarbon polymer that has many uses ranging from Gore Tex raincoats to the coating on non-stick frying pans. PFOA exposure has been linked to at least six diseases so far, including testicular and kidney cancer.<\/p>\n

The jury’s decision is significant in several ways: 1) it is the 3rd and largest award made against DuPont<\/strong> for discharges of C-8 from its Parkersburg, W. Va, manufacturing plant (and there are many, many more cases pending against DuPont because of these discharges), and 2) the jury awarded punitive<\/em> damages, i.e., they are not just payment for the harm experienced by the plaintiff. As the Free Legal Dictionary<\/strong><\/a> puts it, “The purposes of damages are to punish the defendant for outrageous misconduct and to deter the defendant and others from similar misbehavior in the future.”<\/p>\n

To learn more about this case and the extent of PFOA contamination in U.S. waterways, read:<\/p>\n