We previously reported that Judge Suzanne Bolanos, who is presiding over the Roundup trial that led to a $250 million punitive damages award, issued a tentative opinion indicating that she intended to vacate that award and order a new trial.  She decided not to vacate the award after all, but instead to reduce it from $250 million to $39.2 million, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The reduced amount is equal to the jury’s award of compensatory damages. The plaintiff can either accept that reduction or reject it in favor of a new trial.

A few months ago we reported on the huge verdict against Monsanto in San Francisco, and we questioned whether the facts of this case could support an award of punitive damages.  It appears the trial judge has doubts as well.  Reuters reports that Judge Suzanne Bolanos has indicated she is likely to toss the verdict and grant a new trial. 

A few months ago we reported on the huge verdict against Monsanto in San Francisco, and we questioned whether the facts of this case could support an award of punitive damages.  It appears the trial judge has doubts as well.  Reuters reports that Judge Suzanne Bolanos has indicated she is likely to toss the verdict and grant a new trial.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that a Missouri trial judge has “affirmed” the $4.69 billion talc verdict against Johnson & Johnson.  It seems like a bit of a non-story.  Johnson & Johnson elected not to file post-trial motions, so the trial judge did not really affirm anything, he just entered judgment based on the jury’s verdict.  J&J says it plans to appeal.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that a Missouri trial judge has “affirmed” the $4.69 billion talc verdict against Johnson & Johnson.  It seems like a bit of a non-story.  Johnson & Johnson elected not to file post-trial motions, so the trial judge did not really affirm anything, he just entered judgment based on the jury’s verdict.  J&J says it plans to appeal.

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial yesterday entitled Round Up the Usual Lawyers, about the huge San Francisco jury verdict against Monsanto.  The editorial discusses the scientific evidence that Roundup does not cause cancer, and notes that the trial judge described the plaintiffs’ punitive damages case as “thin.”  Perhaps that means she will be inclined to grant Monsanto’s post-trial motions and vacate the punitive award.

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial yesterday entitled Round Up the Usual Lawyers, about the huge San Francisco jury verdict against Monsanto.  The editorial discusses the scientific evidence that Roundup does not cause cancer, and notes that the trial judge described the plaintiffs’ punitive damages case as “thin.”  Perhaps that means she will be inclined to grant Monsanto’s post-trial motions and vacate the punitive award.

Law 360 reports that a jury today awarded $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to a man who alleged he developed cancer as a result of exposure to Monsanto’s  weedkillers, Roundup and Ranger Pro.

This is a hugely significant verdict.  As the article mentions, Roundup and Ranger Pro contain glyphosate, one of the most popular herbicides used around the world (over 290 million pounds were used in 2012).  The link between glyphosate and cancer was hotly disputed at trial.  Monsanto presented evidence that multiple epidemiological studies show no correlation between glyphosate and cancer, but the plaintiffs presented expert witnesses who testified that glyphosate can cause lymphoma.

Under California law, punitive damages are supposed to be awarded only when a defendant has consciously disregarded a “known” risk.  That means that punitive damages should not be imposed on a defendant for disregarding a speculative, theoretical risk.  If published peer-reviewed epidemiology  shows that a product does not cause cancer, and a defendant acts in reliance on those studies, that conduct does not meet the definition of malice under California.  But our courts have not always been consistent in applying this principles.  This case may prove to be a major indicator of the direction in which our courts are heading.

Law 360 reports that a jury today awarded $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to a man who alleged he developed cancer as a result of exposure to Monsanto’s  weedkillers, Roundup and Ranger Pro.

This is a hugely significant verdict.  As the article mentions, Roundup and Ranger Pro contain glyphosate, one of the most popular herbicides used around the world (over 290 million pounds were used in 2012).  The link between glyphosate and cancer was hotly disputed at trial.  Monsanto presented evidence that multiple epidemiological studies show no correlation between glyphosate and cancer, but the plaintiffs presented expert witnesses who testified that glyphosate can cause lymphoma.

Under California law, punitive damages are supposed to be awarded only when a defendant has consciously disregarded a “known” risk.  That means that punitive damages should not be imposed on a defendant for disregarding a speculative, theoretical risk.  If published peer-reviewed epidemiology  shows that a product does not cause cancer, and a defendant acts in reliance on those studies, that conduct does not meet the definition of malice under California.  But our courts have not always been consistent in applying this principles.  This case may prove to be a major indicator of the direction in which our courts are heading.

When we reported on the jury’s $4 billion punitive damages award in this Texas probate case, we noted that the wildly excessive award could not survive judicial review.  Sure enough, the trial judge reduced the punitive damages from $4 billion to $945,000, per Courthouse News Service. 

Even the plaintiff’s attorney recognized that the jury went overboard, and voluntarily asked the trial judge to cut the punitive award to $7.8 million. In comments to to Courthouse News, the plaintiff’s attorney said that he and his client completely respect the judge’s decision to reduce the award.