DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY V. CASTRO ALFARO 786 S.W.2d 674 (1990) CASE BRIEF

DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY V. CASTRO ALFARO

786 S.W.2d 674 (1990)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Dow (D) challenged the decision of the Court of Appeals of Harris County which held that pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 71.031, Texas courts lacked the authority to dismiss the personal injury action filed by Castro (P), Costa Rican workers, on the ground of forum non conveniens.

FACTS: Ps claim that while working on a banana plantation in Costa Rica for Standard Fruit Company, an American subsidiary of Dole Fresh Fruit Company, headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, they were required to handle dibromochloropropane ['DBCP'], a pesticide allegedly manufactured and furnished to Standard Fruit by Ds. The Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice of intent to cancel all food uses of DBCP on September 22, 1977. It followed with an order suspending registrations of pesticides containing DBCP on November 3, 1977. Before and after the E.P.A.'s ban of DBCP in the United States, Ds apparently shipped several hundred thousand gallons of the pesticide to Costa Rica for use by Standard Fruit. Ps and other plantation workers, filed suit in a state district court in Houston, Texas, alleging that their handling of DBCP caused them serious personal injuries for which Ds were liable under the theories of products liability, strict liability and breach of warranty. P, a Costa Rican resident and employees of the Standard Fruit Company, and eighty-one other Costa Rican employees and their wives brought suit against (D) and Shell Oil Company. Ps claim that they suffered personal injuries as a result of exposure to dibromochloropropane (DBCP). The employees exposed to DBCP allegedly suffered several medical problems, including sterility. D sued in Harris county district court in April 1984. The amended petition alleged that the court had jurisdiction under article 4678 of the Revised Statutes. Ds contested the jurisdiction of the trial court almost three years alter the filing of the suit, and contended in the alternative that the case should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Despite a finding of jurisdiction, the trial court dismissed the case on the ground of forum non conveniens. The court of appeals held that Texas courts lack the authority to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Ds appealed. At issue is whether Section 71.031 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code abolishes the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner