Assumption of Risk for Licensed Applicators of Paraquat

Paraquat dichloride is one of the most effective herbicides in modern agriculture, but it is also one of the most toxic. For decades, licensed applicators have worked closely with this chemical, relying on its potency to clear fields and protect crops. However, mounting scientific evidence now links chronic Paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s Disease, a debilitating and incurable neurological condition.

As thousands of lawsuits are filed against manufacturers like Syngenta and Chevron, a common legal defense has emerged: Assumption of Risk.

The argument is simple but dangerous for plaintiffs: because licensed applicators underwent training and knew the chemical was toxic, they supposedly “accepted” the risks involved in using it. If you are a licensed applicator suffering from Parkinson’s, you might worry that your professional status prevents you from seeking justice.

At Walch Law, we want to be clear: knowing a chemical is dangerous is not the same as consenting to a hidden, life-altering disease.

What Is “Assumption of Risk”?

In personal injury law, assumption of risk is a defense doctrine. It essentially states that if a person voluntarily engages in a dangerous activity knowing the potential hazards, they cannot sue for injuries that result from those inherent risks.

There are generally two types of assumption of risk:

Express Assumption of Risk: This happens when you sign a waiver or contract explicitly agreeing not to sue (like signing a waiver before skydiving).
Implied Assumption of Risk: This occurs when your behavior shows you understood the risk and chose to proceed anyway (like attending a baseball game where foul balls are a known hazard).

How It Applies to Licensed Applicators

Defendants in Paraquat litigation often argue that licensed applicators fall under this doctrine. Their logic follows this path:

To buy and spray Paraquat, you must be a certified applicator.
Certification requires completing an EPA-approved training course.
This training emphasizes that Paraquat is highly toxic and requires strict Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
Therefore, the defense argues, you knew the risks and voluntarily chose to use the product anyway.

While this argument sounds logical on the surface, it ignores a critical legal distinction: the difference between known risks and hidden risks.

Why Assumption of Risk May Not Apply to Parkinson’s Disease

The core flaw in the “assumption of risk” defense for Paraquat cases is the scope of knowledge. To assume a risk, you must fully appreciate the specific danger you are facing.

Licensed applicators were indeed trained on the acute toxicity of Paraquat. You knew that swallowing a sip could be fatal. You knew it could burn your skin or damage your eyes. You likely wore gloves, respirators, and long sleeves to prevent these immediate injuries.

However, were you warned that low-level, chronic exposure could cause Parkinson’s Disease decades later?

In most cases, the answer is a resounding “no.” Manufacturers allegedly knew about the neurological risks for years but failed to include warnings on the label or in safety training materials. You cannot assume a risk you were never told about.

Exceptions and Counter-Arguments

At Walch Law, we use several legal strategies to dismantle the assumption of risk defense:

Failure to Warn: The strongest argument against assumption of risk is that the manufacturers failed to warn users about the specific link to Parkinson’s. If the label only warned of “toxicity” but remained silent on neurodegenerative disease, the user’s “assumption” was incomplete.
Defective Product Design: We argue that Paraquat is unreasonably dangerous in its design. If a product is so hazardous that no amount of training or PPE can make it safe for its intended use, the manufacturer can be held strictly liable regardless of the user’s knowledge.
Misrepresentation: If manufacturers actively downplayed safety concerns or manipulated safety data to keep the product on the market, they cannot hide behind the defense that the user “should have known better.”

The “Sophisticated Intermediary” Defense

A related legal concept often used against applicators is the “sophisticated user” or “sophisticated intermediary” doctrine. This defense argues that because applicators are professionals with specialized knowledge, manufacturers have a lower duty to warn them compared to the general public.

However, being “sophisticated” about agriculture does not make you a toxicologist. An applicator knows how to mix ratios and spray patterns; they do not have the laboratory resources to study the blood-brain barrier or neurotoxicity. Unless the manufacturer explicitly shared their scientific findings with the agricultural community, the applicator’s professional status should not bar them from recovery.

How Walch Law Navigates These Complex Defenses

When you hire Walch Law, you are hiring a team that understands the nuances of product liability and agricultural law. We know that the assumption of risk defense is designed to intimidate plaintiffs into dropping their cases or accepting low settlements. We don’t let that happen.

Here is how we build a case to overcome these defenses:

Reviewing Training Materials: We analyze the specific certification materials and labels from the time you used the product to prove that Parkinson’s was never mentioned.
Establishing “Normal Use”: We gather evidence to show that you followed all safety protocols and used the product exactly as directed, yet were still harmed. This proves the product itself was the problem, not your behavior.
Expert Testimony: We work with industrial hygienists and medical experts to demonstrate that standard PPE guidelines provided by the manufacturers were insufficient to prevent exposure to Paraquat vapors or drift.

Don’t Let Them Blame You for Their Negligence

If you are a licensed applicator battling Parkinson’s Disease, do not assume that your training or certification disqualifies you from a lawsuit. The manufacturers had a duty to be transparent about all risks, not just the ones that were convenient to disclose.

You spent your career working hard to put food on America’s tables. You deserve legal representation that works just as hard for you.

Contact Walch Law today for a free, confidential consultation. We will review the details of your exposure, assess the strength of your claim, and explain your legal options clearly. We work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay nothing unless we win your case. Call us now to protect your rights and your future.