April 14, 2020
Review of Litigation Against Monsanto Regarding the Safety of Glyphosate
Written by Chloe Marie – Research Specialist
A prior article provided an overview of developments regarding the safety of the use of glyphosate. In this article, we will address selected ongoing cases challenging the safety of Roundup® products in the states of California and Missouri.
Major Legal developments in California
Three legal cases, all filed in California, have garnered much attention as they became the first cases against Monsanto to go to trial before a jury. The ultimate verdicts in these cases have generated a lot of publicity in the media raising questions about the health effects of using Roundup® products, in which glyphosate is an active ingredient.
- Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company et al., in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, Case No. CGC-16-550128
- Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto Company et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, docket no. 3:16-cv-00525
- Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto Company et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, Case No. RG17862702
In 2016, California residents Dewayne Johnson and Edwin Hardeman both filed legal actions against Monsanto Co., respectively in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that they had contracted non-hodgkin lymphoma resulting from their regular use of Roundup® products. Both Johnson and Hardeman were exposed to glyphosate during the course s of their employment. They alleged that the company had acted negligently in fulfilling its duties to them and that the company had produced a defective product.
In June 2017, the Pilliods also filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Co. before the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda claiming that they suffered from significant physical and emotional injuries, including their diagnosis of non-hodgkin lymphomas after using Roundup® products for several decades around their home and three other properties located in California.
According to Johnson’s complaint, Monsanto Co. consciously misled the public and government agencies over the carcinogenic nature of glyphosate in its Roundup® products. Johnson asserted negligence and product liability claims based on design defect and failure to warn and argued that Monsanto Co. “knew or had reason to know” that its Roundup® products had a design defect due to the hazardous and carcinogenic nature of glyphosate and that it failed to warn the users.
His complaint stated that Monsanto Co. “wrongfully concealed information” about the hazardous nature of its Roundup® products and, although aware of the risks incurred by their users, the company “made conscious decisions not to redesign, warn or inform the unsuspecting public.” For this reason, among others, Johnson considered that Monsanto Co. should be held strictly liable for merchandising products that caused users to suffer from significant health issues.
Johnson also contended that Monsanto Co. negligently failed in several respects in its duty of exercising reasonable care to protect the Roundup® users, including him, from dangerous exposure to glyphosate. He alleged that Monsanto fully knew the circumstances and impact of glyphosate on human health, but it did not adequately investigate, design, test, and evaluate the Roundup® products, which in turn led to an unreasonable risk of injury.
Similarly, Hardeman maintained that “Roundup® and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use.” In his complaint, Hardeman alleged that Monsanto Co. had knowledge that exposure to glyphosate was associated with an increased risk of developing cancers, including non-hodgkin lymphoma, citing scientific findings and measures prohibiting the use of glyphosate adopted by foreign governments. Hardemen also alleged that Monsanto Co.’s multiple “aggressive” marketing campaigns and statements proclaiming the safety of Roundup® products showed a negligent disregard for human health.
Just like Johnson and Hardeman, the Pilliods asserted negligence and product liability claims for design defect and failure to warn. In their complaint, the Pilliods argued that “exposure to Roundup® and glyphosate-containing products present[ed] a risk of harmful side effects that outweigh any potential utility stemming from the use of the herbicide” and that they “relied upon the skill, superior knowledge, and judgment” of Monsanto to warn them of the dangers involved. The Pilliods also alleged that Monsanto Co. “negligently and/or intentionally conceal[ed] and fail[ed] to disclose the results of trials, tests, and studies of exposure to glyphosate, and, consequently, the risk of serious harm associated with human use of and exposure to Roundup®.”
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits all sought compensatory for their economic losses and future medical expenses as well as for pain and suffering. The plaintiffs also sought punitive damages against Monsanto.
In its answer to the complaints, Monsanto Co. denied all of plaintiffs’ allegations and countered that they all failed to state a claim or cause of action against the company. Monsanto Co. argued that their claims relating product liability should be barred because plaintiffs could not provide scientific evidence that the Roundup® products were defective or unreasonably dangerous and because the products had been merchandised using proper warning information and instructions “in accordance with the state of the art and the state of scientific and technological knowledge” and pursuant to “all applicable government safety standards.”
Monsanto Co. also argued that plaintiffs’ negligence claims were “insubstantial,” and thus “insufficient to be a proximate or substantial contributing cause of any injuries” sustained by plaintiffs.” Interestingly, Monsanto Co. also answered that their claims should be preempted “because of U.S. EPA findings that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans and/or because of U.S. EPA-approved product labeling.”
Following a long process of discovery research, hearings, filing motions, and then trial, the jury in all three cases rendered verdicts against Monsanto Co. and awarded plaintiffs very large amounts of both compensatory and punitive damages.
On August 10, 2018, Dewayne Johnson was awarded a total of $289 million, including 250 million in punitive damages. Monsanto Co. challenged the jury’s decision and subsequently filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) and New Trial. In an Order dated October 22, 2018, the court denied the JNOV Motion upholding the jury’s determination that Johnson’s exposure to glyphosate was a substantial factor in causing his cancer; however, it conditionally denied the New Trial Motion, provided that Johnson agreed to a reduced award equivalent to that of the compensatory damages award. According to the court in this case, the award of $39,253,209 is “extremely high for a single plaintiff and consists largely of non-economic damages which the due process case law recognizes has a punitive element.” Johnson accepted said reduced amount.
Monsanto Co., however, appealed the verdict to the Court of Appeal of the State of California in March 2019 seeking a new trial. Monsanto Co. argued in its opening brief, dated April 23, 2019, that “[e]ven if this Court does not reverse the judgment with directions to enter judgment in favor of Monsanto, a new trial is required because the trial court abused its discretion by (a) excluding documents published by EPA and foreign regulatory agencies stating there is no basis to conclude that Monsanto’s herbicides pose a cancer risk to consumers, while (b) admitting into evidence the IARC Monograph that concluded glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.” This appeal is pending in the California court system.
Hardeman was awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages on March 27, 2019. Monsanto Co. subsequently filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages and another motion for a new trial on compensatory damages. On July 15, 2019, the U.S. District Court concluded that the appraisal of compensatory damages has been “sufficiently supported by the evidence;” thus denied Monsanto Co.’s motion for a new trial. The U.S. District Court, however, reduced the amount of the award for punitive damages to $20 million, which is the “maximum award that comports with due process.”
On May 13, 2019, the jury awarded Alberta Pilliod $37,158,876 in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages, and it awarded Alva Pilliod $18,047,296 in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages. Just as in the Johnson case, Monsanto Co. filed JNOV and new trial motions. On July 26, 2019, the Superior Court of California issued an order denying the JNOV motion but conditionally granting a new trial, unless Alberta and Alva Pilliod both consented to a reduced award in the amount of $56,005,830 and $30,736,480 respectively. The Pilliods accepted on the same day.
Major Legal Developments in Missouri
Monsanto faces numerous lawsuits throughout the country, and observers are interested in how these claims will fare outside of California. Monsanto will have the opportunity defend itself against these claims in its hometown of St. Louis, Missouri during the Walter Winston v. Monsanto Co. trial, currently scheduled for October 15, 2019.
Walter Winston, along with other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Co. on March 12, 2019, alleged that he suffered from physical and emotional injury, including Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cancers, after using Monsanto Co.’s Roundup® products. He asserted strict liability claims for defective manufacture and design and argued that Monsanto Co. falsely communicated information that the Roundup® products were safe even though the company knew about the products presented a danger to human health, among other things.
Another case, Gordon v. Monsanto Co., is scheduled for trial on January 27, 2020. Here, 74 plaintiffs, including Sharlean Gordon, brought legal actions against Monsanto Co. alleging that the “unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of Roundup, and its active ingredient, glyphosate” as well as the company’s “wrongful conduct” have “directly and proximately” caused their Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas. Sharlean Gordon will be the first of that group of plaintiffs to go to trial.
In total, there are more than 10,000 of plaintiffs in the United States who have initiated legal action against Monsanto Co., and in the wake of the three recent California verdicts awarding consequential damages to the plaintiffs, more and more cases have been filed in California, Missouri, and other states. Many of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in order to centralize all pretrial proceedings given the common nature of these cases.
References:
Johnson v. Monsanto Co.
Verdict Form (August 10, 2018)
Plaintiff’s Notice of Acceptance of Remittitur (October 26, 2018)
Appellant’s Opening Brief, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, A155940 & A156706
Hardeman v. Monsanto Co.
First Amended Complaint; Jury Trial Demanded (February 12, 2016)
Pilliod v. Monsanto Co.
Verdict Form for Alva Pilliod (May 13, 2019)
Verdict Form for Alberta Pilliod (May 13, 2019)
Plaintiff’s Notice of Acceptance of Remittitur (July 26, 2019)
This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
