The lawsuit Clifford Still v. 3M Company et al. was initiated by Clifford Still against a consortium of companies, including 3M Company, alleging that their fluorochemical products, specifically Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) containing various per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), resulted in significant health issues, including testicular cancer. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to the defendants’ actions and omissions related to the development, marketing, distribution, and disposal of these hazardous products.
Nature of the Action
The essence of this legal action revolves around the defendants’ development, marketing, release, and handling of AFFF containing toxic chemicals such as PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO and their derivatives. These chemicals are collectively referred to as “fluorochemical products” in the complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to warn users and consumers about the persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic properties of these chemicals, as well as their propensity to contaminate water supplies. This failure to warn, despite being aware of the risks, led to the contamination of public drinking water supplies and the subsequent health issues faced by Clifford Still.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, with jurisdiction established under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) due to the diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The complaint was filed directly in accordance with Case Management Order No. 3 (CMO #3), issued by Judge Richard M. Gergel. The Southern District of Alabama is designated as the “home venue” where the plaintiff would have otherwise filed the lawsuit, making it the appropriate jurisdiction due to the occurrence of events leading to the claim within that district.
Factual Allegations
Exposure to AFFF and Fluorochemical Products
Clifford Still asserts that he consumed water contaminated with PFAS through municipal water supplies, particularly from Saraland Water & Sewer Service in Alabama. His lifelong exposure to these contaminated water supplies culminated in his diagnosis of testicular cancer in June 2020. PFAS are man-made chemicals characterized by their persistence in the environment and human body, resistance to biodegradation, and ability to migrate through soil to groundwater, resulting in widespread contamination.
The defendants are accused of knowingly allowing PFAS to contaminate water sources, exposing Clifford Still and others to significant health risks. The complaint details how PFAS are thermally, chemically, and biologically stable, resistant to natural degradation processes, and can be found globally in water, soil, air, and human food supplies. These chemicals are readily absorbed into animal and human tissues and accumulate in the serum, kidney, and liver, posing severe health risks.
Defendants’ Knowledge and Conduct
The defendants had knowledge of the toxic nature of PFAS as early as the 1960s. Despite this awareness, they continued to manufacture, distribute, and promote these chemicals without providing adequate warnings about their dangers. By the late 1960s, animal toxicity testing indicated that exposure to PFAS resulted in adverse health effects in various species, including toxic effects on the liver, testes, adrenals, and other organs and systems. Additionally, by the 1980s, it was known that PFAS could bind to proteins in the blood, remain in the body for long periods, and accumulate with each additional exposure, no matter how small.
Despite knowing that PFAS were toxic and could render drinking water unsafe, the defendants did not take necessary actions to prevent contamination. Instead, they continued to produce and promote these chemicals, contributing to their pervasive presence in the environment and human populations. Regulatory bodies like the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), World Health Organization (WHO), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have all concluded that exposure to PFAS is harmful to human health, causing an increased risk of various diseases, including cancer.
Legal Causes of Action
The plaintiff brings forth multiple legal claims, focusing on product liability, negligence, and fraudulent conduct by the defendants.
Product Liability
1. Defective Design
The plaintiff claims that the fluorochemical products were defectively designed because their risks outweighed any benefits. The defendants could have used safer alternative designs that would have mitigated the harmful effects of PFAS. These alternatives include AFFF agents utilizing 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS) or Perfluorohaxanoic acid (PFHxA), which pose lower risks of bioaccumulation, persistence, and toxicity.
The fluorochemical products did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect, given their carcinogenic and harmful nature. The plaintiff and his community used these products in a reasonably foreseeable manner, without substantial changes in their condition from when they were sold. The failure of these products to perform safely was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm, and the availability of safer alternatives underscores the defectiveness of the defendants’ products.
2. Failure to Warn
The defendants failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers of their products, even though they knew or should have known about the substantial risks associated with PFAS exposure. Adequate warnings could have enabled users and communities to take measures to avoid exposure and prevent harm.
The lack of sufficient warnings rendered the fluorochemical products defective. The plaintiff and his community were unaware of the risks posed by these chemicals, and proper warnings would have allowed them to avoid or mitigate exposure. The defendants’ failure to warn was a direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Negligence and Fraud
1. Negligent Misrepresentation
The defendants are accused of negligently misrepresenting the safety of their products to consumers and regulatory authorities. This misrepresentation led to widespread environmental contamination and human exposure to harmful PFAS chemicals. The defendants’ failure to disclose the true nature of their products’ risks constitutes negligent misrepresentation, causing significant harm to the plaintiff.
2. Fraudulent Concealment
The defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment by intentionally hiding the bioaccumulative and toxic nature of PFAS. For decades, they assured the public and regulators that their products were safe, despite internal knowledge to the contrary. This deliberate concealment prevented individuals like Clifford Still from taking steps to mitigate their exposure, leading to severe health consequences.
Emotional Distress and Battery
1. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
The plaintiff asserts that the defendants’ actions caused him significant emotional distress. Knowing the toxic nature of PFAS, the defendants continued polluting the environment, resulting in the plaintiff’s cancer diagnosis and ongoing emotional suffering. The negligent infliction of emotional distress claim underscores the profound impact of the defendants’ conduct on the plaintiff’s mental and emotional well-being.
2. Battery and Trespass
The presence of PFAS in Clifford Still’s body is considered a continuous and harmful invasion, constituting battery and trespass. The defendants’ intentional acts led to unwanted and harmful contact, causing severe physical and emotional harm. This claim highlights the invasive and detrimental effects of PFAS exposure on the plaintiff’s health and quality of life.
Conclusion
The lawsuit brought by Clifford Still against multiple corporations centers on the alleged harmful effects of PFAS contamination resulting from the defendants’ fluorochemical products. The case highlights significant issues related to environmental pollution, corporate responsibility, and public health. The plaintiff seeks damages for the physical, emotional, and economic harms suffered due to the defendants’ negligence and intentional misconduct in handling and promoting these hazardous chemicals. The detailed allegations underscore the long-term and widespread impact of PFAS contamination on individuals and communities.
This legal action emphasizes the need for greater accountability and transparency in the manufacturing and distribution of potentially hazardous chemicals. It also calls attention to the importance of adequate warnings and safer product designs to protect public health and the environment. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for regulatory practices and corporate responsibility in managing chemical risks.
