As litigation concerning the emerging contaminants known as “perfluoroalkyl” or “polyfluoroalkyl” substances (PFAS) has become increasingly common, the omnipresent nature of PFAS has created a troublesome issue for courts and litigants. In particular, courts have struggled to articulate the level of injury necessary to proceed on a claim that exposure to PFAS caused some kind of recoverable damage. A recent decision in Hardwick v. 3M Co. by a federal court in Ohio highlights the challenge. In that case, the court issued a ruling that watered down the standing requirement in PFAS cases and opened the door to litigation beyond the reach of common sense and at least 100 years of legal precedent.
October 23, 2019 | The Daily Journal