## Facts

- Banana-plantation workers in Nicaragua, including Tellez (collectively, the plantation workers), alleged they were exposed at work to 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP), a pesticide described as toxic.
- The plantation workers alleged that DBCP exposure caused reproductive injuries, including sterility and infertility.
- The plantation workers sued companies they alleged controlled, supplied, and directed the use of DBCP on banana plantations, including (a) companies that manufactured DBCP (the manufacturers) and (b) fruit companies that bought and distributed DBCP for plantation use (the fruit companies).
- The plantation workers pleaded three causes of action: (1) strict liability, (2) negligence, and (3) fraudulent concealment.
- Under strict liability, the plantation workers alleged that pesticides containing DBCP were defective because they caused harm even when used in an intended and foreseeable manner.
- Under negligence, the plantation workers alleged that the manufacturers and fruit companies breached duties of care owed to the plantation workers and other foreseeable users by producing, supplying, purchasing, and/or directing use of DBCP despite evidence of serious risks to human health.
- Under fraudulent concealment, the plantation workers alleged that the manufacturers and fruit companies actively concealed material facts about DBCP’s dangers so the plantation workers would continue using, working with, or being exposed to the product.
- The plantation workers sought compensatory damages for their injuries and exemplary (punitive) damages based on allegations that defendants knew of DBCP’s health risks yet continued the conduct and concealed the risks.

## Issues

1. Whether the plantation workers’ allegations supported claims for strict products liability based on a defective and unreasonably dangerous DBCP-containing pesticide used in an intended and foreseeable manner.
2. Whether the plantation workers’ allegations supported negligence claims based on defendants’ alleged knowledge of DBCP’s health risks and continued manufacture, supply, purchase, distribution, and/or direction of use.
3. Whether the plantation workers’ allegations supported a fraudulent-concealment theory based on alleged active concealment of material safety information intended to keep workers using or remaining around DBCP.
4. Whether exemplary (punitive) damages were available based on allegations of knowing disregard of worker safety and concealment of serious product hazards.

## Decision

- The case is identified in secondary sources as a Los Angeles County Superior Court proceeding filed in 2004 (No. BC312852) and reflected in Westlaw as 2004 WL 5468592; the underlying trial-court rulings are not published in an official reporter.
- The action proceeded in Superior Court to a later jury trial phase (as described in trial reporting), where plaintiffs obtained compensatory and punitive awards against certain defendants.
- In later post-trial proceedings described in public reporting and party statements, the trial court vacated the judgments and dismissed the actions based on findings that the litigation was tainted by fraud.

## Legal Principles

- Strict products liability may be pleaded by alleging a product defect (such as design defect or failure to warn), that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and that the defect was a substantial factor in causing injury during intended or reasonably foreseeable use.
- Negligence requires allegations of a duty of care, breach, causation, and damages; alleged knowledge of serious risks may support breach and, where permitted, enhanced damages theories.
- Fraudulent concealment generally requires allegations that the defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact when under a duty to disclose, intended to induce reliance, the plaintiff reasonably relied (including by continuing conduct or remaining exposed), and resulting harm.
- Exemplary (punitive) damages generally require more than negligence—allegations and proof of conduct such as malice, oppression, fraud, or conscious disregard of safety, depending on the governing law and the procedural posture.
- Unpublished trial-court orders typically do not serve as binding precedent, even when accessible through commercial databases.

## Conclusion

*Tellez v. Dole, 2004 WL 5468592* concerns claims by Nicaraguan banana-plantation workers, including Tellez, who alleged that workplace exposure to the pesticide DBCP caused sterility and infertility and that DBCP manufacturers and fruit companies that bought, distributed, and directed its use knew of the dangers and concealed them; the case proceeded in Los Angeles County Superior Court on strict liability, negligence, and fraudulent concealment theories with requests for exemplary damages, later reaching a jury-verdict stage before subsequent trial-court orders (as reported publicly) vacated the judgments and dismissed the cases based on findings of fraud in the litigation process.
