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. 

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.

Associated Press reports (via WLOS.com) that a North Carolina jury last week awarded $23.5 million in compensatory damages and $450 million punitive damages in a nuisance case against Smithfield Foods, which operates a major hog farming operation near the plaintiffs’ property.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because we blogged about a very similar case a few months ago.

The $450 million number will be reduced under North Carolina law, which caps punitive damages at the greater of $250,000 or three times the amount of compensatory damages.  The plaintiffs in the prior case challenged the constitutionality of that statute, but lost that argument. 

The Daily News of Memphis reports that the Tennessee Court of Appeals has vacated a $28 million punitive damages award based on allegedly negligent care provided by a nursing home.

This case involved multiple defendants who got whacked for a collective award of $1.9 million in compensatory damages and $28 million in punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of liability against one of the defendants, but found insufficient evidence to support liability as to the others.  The court then concluded that the punitive damages must be retried even as to the one defendant that was properly held liable, because the amount of the award was based partly on the conduct of the other defendants.