Monsanto Slammed With $80M Verdict in First Federal Roundup Trial
After one day of deliberations, jurors in San Francisco found that Monsanto, now owned by Bayer AG, was liable for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The award includes $75 million in punitive damages.
March 27, 2019 at 06:13 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A federal jury hit Monsanto with a verdict of more than $80 million Wednesday after finding the company liable for a man's cancer caused by its Roundup herbicide.
After one day of deliberations, six jurors in San Francisco unanimously found that Monsanto, now owned by Bayer AG, was liable for plaintiff Edwin Hardeman's non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The award includes $75 million in punitive damages for Hardeman, who alleged he was diagnosed with the blood cancer after two decades of using Roundup to kill weeds on his 56-acre property in Sonoma County.
Hardeman's lead trial attorneys, Aimee Wagstaff, of Andrus Wagstaff in Lakewood, Colorado, and Jennifer A. Moore, of the Moore Law Group in Louisville, Kentucky, said their client was pleased with the verdict.
“As demonstrated throughout trial, since Roundup's inception over 40 years ago, Monsanto refuses to act responsibly,” they wrote in a statement following the verdict. “It is clear from Monsanto's actions that it does not care whether Roundup causes cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about Roundup. It speaks volumes that not one Monsanto employee, past or present, came live to trial to defend Roundup's safety or Monsanto's actions. Today, the jury resoundingly held Monsanto accountable for its 40 years of corporate malfeasance and sent a message to Monsanto that it needs to change the way it does business.”
Bayer said it planned to appeal.
“We are disappointed with the jury's decision, but this verdict does not change the weight of over four decades of extensive science and the conclusions of regulators worldwide that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic,” the company said in a statement. “The verdict in this trial has no impact on future cases and trials, as each one has its own factual and legal circumstances.”
The verdict is the second time that jurors have gone against Monsanto, which suffered a $289 million award last year in a case in San Francisco Superior Court. The judge in that case, however, slashed the award by more than $200 million. Another Roundup trial against Monsanto is scheduled to begin Thursday in Alameda County Superior Court.
The verdict caps the first bellwether trial from about 800 lawsuits coordinated in multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California. In a move favoring Monsanto, he bifurcated the first bellwether trial, forcing plaintiffs to prove that scientific evidence proved their allegations that Roundup causes cancer before moving to the question of Monsanto's liability. Wednesday's award ends the second of two phases of a trial that began Feb. 25.
In the first phase, jurors found that Roundup was a “substantial factor” in Hardeman's cancer. In the second phase, the jury had to determine whether Roundup had a design defect, if Monsanto acted reasonably in selling and marketing Monsanto in light of the scientific evidence, and whether the product should have included a warning label during the time that Hardeman was using it.
In its statement, Bayer noted that the jury deliberated for four days in the first phase, which dealt with causation—“an indication that it was very likely divided over the scientific evidence.“ The company also noted skepticism Chhabria expressed pretrial about expert evidence on the science.
“The legal rulings under which the court admitted expert scientific testimony from the plaintiff that it called 'shaky' is one of several significant issues that the company may raise on appeal,“ the company wrote in its statement. “Monsanto moved to exclude this same evidence before trial.“
The verdict is a victory for Wagstaff, who got off to a rough start after Chhabria sanctioned her for what he called “obvious violations” of his pretrial orders during her opening statement in the first phase.
A team from Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz led by Brian Stekloff represented Monsanto.
Both sides had stipulated to about $200,000 in economic damages for Hardeman's medical expenses, but the jury also awarded $5.6 million in past and future non-economic damages.
Jurors also found clear and convincing evidence that Monsanto was liable, adding punitive damages to the verdict. In closing arguments Tuesday, Moore urged jurors to send a “loud message” to Monsanto.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigator of the Week: A Long-Sought Win on Preemption for Monsanto at the Third Circuit
Litigators of the Week: Proskauer Scores a Defense Win for Last Defendant Standing in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
Litigators of the Week: Covington Team Gets a Directed Verdict in First Trial Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250