Coincidence is not Causation

Coincidence is not Causation

      A recent opinion by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals emphasizes the rule that mere coincidence is not equivalent to the showing of causation necessary for a suit to proceed.  Fish Farms Partnership v. Winston-Weaver Co., Inc., ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2013 WL 4268103 (6^th Cir. Aug. 16, 2013).

      Fish Farms Partnership operated a tomato farm in Tennessee.  After the 2008 growing season, they brought suit against Winston-Weaver and Crop Production Services alleging that defective fertilizer had harmed the crop.  Crop Production was dismissed on a not otherwise-described stipulation, and the trial court ultimately granted summary judgment to Winston-Weaver, concluding that Fish Farms had not produced admissible evidence supporting the assertion that Fish Farms “actually suffered the harm it alleged.”  While there was testimony that excess nitrogen from fertilizer is bad for tomato plants, Fish Farms had failed to demonstrate that its plants were themselves damaged by excess nitrogen.

     The brief opinion of the Sixth Circuit also cautions against hearsay evidence incorporated into expert witness testimony.