## Facts

- Royal Backes sued Valspar Corporation on behalf of his three minor children, alleging their illnesses were caused by exposure to hazardous wastes associated with Valspar.
- From 1976 to 1978, the family lived on property near Rockford, Illinois, using well water.
- During that period, the children developed medical problems, including rheumatoid arthritis with lead detected in one child’s bloodstream, an ovarian condition with an abscessed appendix, and learning difficulties.
- The children’s health and mental acuity reportedly improved after the family moved away.
- Valspar had stored waste on an adjoining property until 1972; the wastes included phenols, lead, mercury, and other hazardous substances.
- In 1975, a former environmental agency chemist, Dennis Johnson, tested wells on the property and found phenols at levels several times above those considered safe for drinking.
- In 1980, Johnson found phenolic paint residue on the property and attributed it to drums Valspar had placed on the adjoining property before 1972.
- Johnson submitted an affidavit asserting the wells were contaminated during the family’s residency and that the children’s problems “might or could have been caused” by drinking the well water; he also stated the waste was a “probable” cause.
- Valspar submitted evidence that only one child had lead detected, that its process used only minute quantities of lead, and that no treating physician connected the children’s ailments to contaminated water.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs produced admissible, non-speculative evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on causation in a toxic-tort action.
2. Whether an affidavit from a chemist linking contamination to medical conditions—without medical methodology or physician support—can defeat summary judgment under Rule 56.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Valspar.
- The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Valspar’s wastes caused the children’s specific illnesses.
- The court agreed that the key affidavit was insufficient because it lacked an adequate foundation for medical causation and relied on possibility-based assertions.
- Evidence of contamination and temporal association (illness during residency and improvement after moving) was insufficient, without qualified support, to establish tort causation.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, once the movant shows an absence of evidence on a material element, the nonmovant must produce specific facts showing a genuine dispute for trial.
- In toxic-tort cases involving complex medical causation, plaintiffs generally must present qualified expert testimony linking the alleged exposure to the claimed injuries through a reliable basis.
- Expert opinions framed as “might or could have” caused an injury, without reliable methodology or appropriate qualifications, are too speculative to create a triable issue.
- Evidence of environmental contamination, standing alone, does not establish that the contamination caused particular medical conditions; causation must be supported by admissible proof.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the plaintiffs’ causation showing rested on a chemist’s speculative affidavit and lacked medical evidence connecting the children’s illnesses to the alleged contaminants, leaving no genuine issue of material fact for trial.


Backes v. Valspar Corp., 783 F.2d 77 (7th Cir. 1986)