The government-contractor defense

it is apparent that the government contract defense in this case is powerful.

This factor provides a strong reason for settlement.

not liable if it can show that the government knew as much about the dangers of the product as the manufacturer knew or should have known

the evidence briefly sampled below based upon plaintiffs' fairness brief indicates that defendants would have been able to make out a prima facie case whatever the precise test.

Representatives of the Army Chemical Corps briefed PSAC on the "Possible Health Hazards of Phenoxyacetates As Related To Defoliation Operations In Vietnam" on May 9, 1963.

Edgewood scientists were aware of dioxin compounds even before a representative of the Army's Chemical Corps Research and Development Command was sent to Europe in 1959 where he obtained "startling" information regarding the toxicity of dioxin.

One member of PSAC testified that he did not transmit his information to President Johnson because he personally did not believe at the time that there was a threat of serious health effects.

The government and the plaintiffs argue that the evidence would allow the inference that not until 1970 did the government learn what the defendants knew in 1965 about the dangers of dioxin in low concentrations and of the VPC method for detecting dioxin.

It knew of at least some of the health hazards to workers posed by dioxin in large concentrations.

There is some evidence that government agencies charged with the purchase and use of Agent Orange were not told by defendants and were not aware that dioxin could be dangerous in concentrations of as low as, or perhaps even below, one part per million.

Plaintiffs’ domestic tort law claims were barred by the government-contractor defense