Reuters reports that a jury in Philadelphia has awarded $3 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages to a man who claims he developed cancer from using the weedkiller Roundup.

The article contains some remarkable data about the history of this litigation: the defendants has prevailed in 14 of the 20 Roundup cases that have gone to trial, but the few verdicts that have gone the plaintiffs’ way have been colossal, including one for $1.56 billion and one for $2.25 billion.

Bayer, who is the defendant in these cases because it acquired Roundup manufacturer Monsanto in 2018, maintains its position that “the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the consensus of regulatory bodies . . . worldwide” shows that Roundup is safe. Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s lawyers accuse Bayer of “act[ing] with reckless indifference to people’s safety.”

This litigation could come to an end if Bayer can persuade the Supreme Court to weigh in and adopt the view taken by the Third Circuit, which held that federal law preempts state-law claims about the adequacy of the Roundup’s labelling.

Forbes reports that a federal jury in Orange County has awarded $53.6 million in punitive damages, on top of $17.8 million in compensatory damages, in a lawsuit alleging that toymaker MGA’s “O.M.G.” line of dolls violated the intellectual property rights of music group OMG Girlz.

If this award were to survive posttrial and appellate review, it would be larger than all but two awards that have survived appellate review in the California court system.

Law 360 reports (subscription required) that a jury in Livingston County New York awarded $287 million in damages, including $240 million in punitive damages, for injuries sustained in the crash of a Harley-Davidson “trike.”

The plaintiffs alleged that the Tri Glide Ultra motorcycle contained a faulty software system that caused the motorcycle to swerve across the road an into an embankment, injuring the driver and killing his passenger. The article reports that Harley-Davison plans to appeal.

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that a jury in Las Vegas has awarded $98 million in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against Real Water, a defunct and bankrupt bottled water company.  The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered extreme nausea and fatigue as the result of drinking bottled water that was contaminated with a toxic chemical.

The punitive damages are likely to be reduced in posttrial motions or on appeal because the award seems to bear no relation to the harm claimed by the plaintiffs. In any event, it is highly doubtful that the bankrupt defendant could pay even a fraction of the award. But awards like this are highly beneficial to plaintiffs’ lawyers, as they help make multi-billion punitive damages awards seem like a normal and accepted result of our justice system.

The Federalist Society’s “State Docket Watch” reports on a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that resolved a dispute about how to properly compute the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages in a case where there are multiple defendants.

In a nutshell, the question was whether to use a “per defendant” approach, under which the punitive damages awarded against each defendant would be compared to that defendant’s share of the compensatory damages, or a “per judgment” approach, under which the punitive damages awarded against each defendant would be compared to the total compensatory damages awarded against all defendants.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court opted for the per-defendant approach, as the article explains.

California has adopted the same approach. When determining whether a punitive damages award is excessive, our courts compare the amount awarded against the defendant with that defendant’s share of the compensatory damages.  See, e.g., Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor.

We previously reported on a Philadelphia jury’s award of $2 billion in punitive damages against Bayer for the sale of Roundup by predecessor company Monsanto. The trial court has reduced that award to a mere $350 million, per Reuters.  Not surprisingly, Bayer says it still plans to appeal.

CBS News reports that Johnson & Johnson has reached an agreement with 42 states to resolve claims that it misled consumers about the safety of its talc products. Under the agreement, Johnson & Johnson will pay $700 million and will stop making and selling all talc-containing products.

The settlement is relvant to this blog because litigation over Johnson & Johnson’s talc products has produced enormous punitive damages awards in California and elsewhere. For example,  Reuters recently reported that an Oregon jury awarded $60 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages to woman who claimed she developed mesothelioma from using Johnson & Johnson baby powder. Under Oregon’s split-recovery statute, 70 percent of the punitive damages will go to the state if the award survives posttrial and appellate review.

The settlement between Johnson & Johnson and the states will not prevent individual plaintiffs from continuing to pursue their claims.

In the Washington state court system, a group of teachers, students, and family members have filed a series of lawsuits seeking compensation from Pharmacia (a successor to Monsanto) for injuries allegedly caused by chemicals that leaked from fluorescent lights in a school. We previously reported on a big punitive damages verdict in one of these lawsuits here.

The Washington Court of Appeals has now weighed in on this litigation for the first time, reversing a judgment that awarded $185 million, including $135 million in punitive damages, to three former teachers.  The court’s published opinion concludes that the trial court committed several errors: refusing to consider a defense of Washington’s statute of repose, failure to properly apply Missouri law on punitive damages (Monsanto was headquartered in Missouri), and improperly admitting novel scientific theories offered by plaintiffs’ experts.  This case will go back to the trial court for further proceedings, and the various related cases involving the same issues are likely to be resolved in the same way.

The San Bernardino Sun reports that a San Bernardino County jury awarded $6 million in compensatory damages and $12 million in punitive damages against American Reliable Insurance for its delay in paying a $145,000 claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that after rain water damaged their home, a contractor estimated that repairs would cost over $100,000.  They made a claim to their insurer, who initially paid them only $5,000. The insurer later paid another $140,000, the full limits of the policy, but the plaintiffs said that was only after they had been forced to live without heat in their home for five years.

In their lawsuit against the insurer for bad faith, a jury awarded them $6 million for pain and suffering plus an additional $12 million for punitive damages.  The story does not indicate whether the insurer plans to challenge the award through posttrial motions and appeal, but that seems likely given the size of the award.

Law360 reports that a jury in Los Angeles superior court has imposed $3 billion in punitive damages, on top of $7 billion in compensatory damages, against a man accused of swindling his two brothers out of their share of a real estate partnership.

When this blog launched in 2008, billion-dollar punitive damages awards were a once-in-a-decade phenomenon, at best.  Since then, juries have been increasingly willing to award billions. To date, no such award was survived posttrial and appellate review in California.  One obvious question raised by this award is whether the defendant really has the resources to support it.  California courts follow a rule of thumb that punitive damages awards generally should not exceed 10 percent of a defendant’s net worth. Can this defendant be worth $10 billion, after subtracting the $7 billion compensatory award?