A California Appellate Court Monday cut the amount of a jury award in a Roundup weed killer case while upholding the verdict.
“We agree with the trial court that although substantial evidence supported the award of punitive damages, a reduction was appropriate under the facts of this case,” the three-judge panel for the First District Court of Appeal wrote in its ruling.
The award was reduced from $78.5 million to $21.5 million.
The plaintiff, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, had argued his diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was tied to using Monsanto Co.’s weed killing product, Roundup, in his work as a groundskeeper.
The original San Francisco Superior Court jury award was $289 million, but on appeal from Monsanto, a judge had reduced that figure to $78.5 million.
In a statement, Johnson’s attorney Brent Wisner, said the court’s decision on the verdict was a victory for his client, but he disagreed with the decision to cut the award.
“Nearly every argument by Monsanto was rejected, including Monsanto’s vaunted preemption defense, and the verdict was upheld,” Wisner said.
“The reduction in damages is a function of a deep flaw in California tort law, not the merits of the case,” Wisner said. “Basically, California law does not allow a plaintiff to recover for a shortened life expectancy. This effectively rewards a defendant for killing a plaintiff, as opposed to just injuring him. It is madness. That Lee will not live an entire life with his wife and children should be compensable. Hopefully, when this issue gets before the California Supreme Court, we can change this irrational law.”
In a statement emailed to the Record, a spokesperson for Bayer, Monsanto Co.’s parent company, said they may appeal to the California Supreme Court.
“The appeal court’s decision to reduce the compensatory and punitive damages is a step in the right direction, but we continue to believe that the jury’s verdict and damage awards are inconsistent with the evidence at trial and the law,” Bayer spokesperson Chelsy Shipman said. “Monsanto will consider its legal options, including filing an appeal with the Supreme Court of California. We continue to stand strongly behind the safety and utility of Roundup, a position supported by four decades of extensive science and favorable assessments by leading health regulators worldwide.”
In a reply brief filed in the appeal last year, attorneys for Monsanto stated that worldwide consensus has not found that Roundup can cause cancer.
“The court should reverse the judgment with directions because there is no substantial evidence to support the jury’s failure-to-warn and design-defect findings,” the brief states. “The warning claim fails as a matter of law because there was no prevailing scientific consensus that Roundup causes cancer.”
Last month, a federal judge in California found for Monsanto Co. and a coalition of agriculture trade groups who argued against placing a Proposition 65 label on Roundup, because worldwide regulatory consensus has deemed its active ingredient, glyphosate, to be safe.