Rob Bilott: A corporate defense attorney for Taft Stettinius & Hollister specializing in environmental law, primarily defending chemical companies.
Case Initiation: Contacted by Wilbur Tennant, a farmer from Parkersburg, W.Va., whose cows were dying, allegedly due to chemical pollution from DuPont.
Wilbur Tennant's Allegations
Tennant accused DuPont of polluting his farm, leading to mysterious ailments in his cattle.
He had been unable to seek help locally as DuPont owned much of the local infrastructure and influence.
Bilott's Investigation
Tennant provided grainy video evidence showing dead animals and polluted water.
Bilott decided to take on the case, pivoting from his usual defense work for corporate clients.
Discovery of PFOA
Bilott discovered that a chemical, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), was used by DuPont and was not regulated.
DuPont had been discharging PFOA into the Ohio River and local water systems for decades.
Legal Action
Federal Suit: Filed against DuPont in 1999, alleging chemical pollution and seeking justice for the Tennants.
DuPont's Defense: Claimed poor husbandry was responsible for the Tennants' cattle issues.
Revelations from DuPont Documents
Documents revealed DuPont had been aware of PFOA's dangers since the 1950s.
Studies showed PFOA's link to cancer and birth defects but were concealed from the public.
Class-Action Lawsuit
Bilott filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 70,000 people affected by PFOA-tainted water.
The lawsuit led to a $70 million settlement by DuPont and the installation of filtration systems.
Health Impact Studies
A scientific panel conducted studies, confirming a probable link between PFOA and several diseases.
Findings informed subsequent personal-injury lawsuits against DuPont.
Ongoing Legal Battles
3,535 plaintiffs have filed personal-injury suits against DuPont.
The first bellwether case awarded $1.6 million to a kidney-cancer survivor.
Broader Implications
Bilott's case exposed regulatory gaps in chemical oversight.
The issue highlighted the dangers of unregulated chemicals in consumer products and environmental health.
Reflections and Continuations
Bilott continues to advocate for regulatory changes and continues to litigate against DuPont.
DuPont and other companies agreed to phase out PFOA but replaced it with similar unregulated compounds.
Conclusion
Bilott's case against DuPont revealed systemic issues with chemical regulation and corporate responsibility.
The ongoing litigation seeks to hold DuPont accountable and ensure safe water for affected communities.