Judge Upholds Landmark Monsanto Verdict, But Slashes Punitive Damages by $211 Million

Written by on October 23, 2018 in Agencies & Systems, Government with 0 Comments

A California judge on Monday upheld a verdict against Monsanto but slashed the $289 million the company had been ordered to pay. (Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr)

By Jessica Corbett | Common Dreams

A judge in California on Monday upheld a landmark verdict in a case brought by a terminal cancer patient who successfully argued his illness resulted from his exposure to Monsanto’s weedkiller RoundUp, but slashed the damages the agrochemical giant was originally required to pay from $289 million down to just $78 million and said she would order a retrial if former groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson rejects the payout.

Jurors had come forward to demand that San Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos respect their historic verdict, issued in August. The judge had been considering a request for a retrial from Monsanto, but decided (pdf) instead to cut the punitive damages from $250 to $39 million.

A spokeswoman for Johnson, a 46-year-old father of three who is battling non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and his lawyers told NBC News, “Although we believe a reduction in punitive damages was unwarranted and we are weighing the options, we are pleased the court did not disturb the verdict.” They have until Dec. 7 to make a decision.

While Johnson’s team considers their next move, critics of Monsanto—which recently merged with the German pharmaceutical company Bayer and ditched its name—celebrated that Bolanos upheld the verdict. The Organic Consumers Association tweeted:

ttt OrganicConsumer


While Monsanto maintains that its herbicides “are safe when used as directed,” the state of California and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—a branch of the World Health Organization (WHO)—have classified glyphosate, RoundUp’s active ingredient, as a probable human carcinogen. Despite that designation, U.S. and European regulators still allow farmers to use the world’s most common herbicide.

“The evidence presented to this jury was, quite frankly, overwhelming. And, as we saw in recent days, this jury was intelligent, diligent, and followed the letter of the law. We are happy the jury’s voice was acknowledged by the Court, even if slightly muted,” Johnson’s team added. “We are still reviewing whether we will accept the proposed remittitur or retry the punitive damages. That said, today is a triumph for our legal system.”

Bayer, meanwhile, said in a statement that the judge’s ruling was “a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the liability verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial or the law and plan to file an appeal with the California Court of Appeal.”

No matter the ultimate outcome, Johnson’s case was the first to go to trial and opened the door for other cancer patients seeking to hold Monsanto accountable. In July, even before the initial verdict, a federal judge ruled that hundreds of similar cases could proceed to trial. According to U.S. Right to Know, some 8,000 plaintiffs have alleged in state court that the company’s products have made them sick.

“I hope [Monsanto] gets the message that people in America and across the world are not ignorant. They have already done their own research,” Johnson told the Guardian late last month. “I’m hoping that it snowballs and people really get the picture and they start to make decisions about what they eat, what they spray in their farms.”


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Tags: , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top

Send this to a friend