Philadelphia judge reduces $2.25 billion verdict against Monsanto by more than 80%
A jury in January decided in favor of John McKivison, of Lycoming County, who used Roundup to control weeds at his home for about two decades.
A Philadelphia judge has substantially reduced a $2.25 billion verdict against agricultural giant Monsanto, ruling that a Pennsylvania man who contended he developed cancer from the company’s weed killer Roundup ought to receive $400 million.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Susan Schulman’s ruling comes following a Philadelphia jury’s January verdict in favor of John McKivison, of Lycoming County, who used Roundup to control weeds at his home for about two decades. Exposure to Roundup, McKivison claimed, caused him to later develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.
The jury found in favor of McKivison, and ordered Monsanto to pay $250 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages.
Now, Schulman’s ruling has reduced that penalty by more than 80%, to $50 million in compensatory damages and $350 million in punitive damages.
McKivison’s attorneys, Tom Kline of Kline & Specter in Philadelphia and Jason Itkin of Houston-based Arnold & Itkin, said they will appeal the reduction ruling.
“We are pleased that the trial judge, like many other judges, overruled all of Monsanto’s attempts to derail the message behind the jury’s verdict — namely, that Roundup causes cancer,” Kline and Itkin said in a statement. “However, we also believe the reduction of the amount of the jury’s verdict is a clear departure from established Pennsylvania law that we plan to address in an appeal seeking reinstatement of the jury’s full damage award to compensate John McKivison and deter Monsanto’s unapologetic behavior for selling its carcinogenic product to unsuspecting consumers.”
Following the January verdict, German pharmaceutical giant Bayer, Monsanto’s parent company, said it would appeal, calling the $2.25 billion award “unconstitutionally excessive.” Now, with the award reduced, Monsanto said it plans to further appeal the verdict to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
“While the court’s decision reduces the unconstitutionally excessive damage award, we still disagree with the ruling on the liability verdict, as the trial was marred by significant and reversible errors that misled and inflamed the jury,” the company said in a statement.
Monsanto and Bayer have been sued thousands of times in cases linking Roundup to cancer. At issue in the cases is the chemical glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, which has become one of the world’s most widely used herbicides. Despite concerns that the chemical may cause cancer, world health agencies have not come to a consensus on glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties.
Monsanto said in its statement that it “stands behind Roundup,” and contended that scientific research and assessments “support the safety of glyphosate-based products.”
“It is clear that when trials focus on the science and regulatory consensus, the company prevails” at trial, the company said, adding that it “has resolved the overwhelming majority of claims in this litigation.”
Among cases with favorable outcomes for Monsanto was one Philadelphia case in March in which a Lansdale man alleged that Roundup caused his cancer. That case’s jury voted unanimously in Monsanto’s favor.